Folks in the Currency thread got to talking about whether games should/must/mustn't/shouldn't encourage or enforce certain types of behaviors in their players.

Me, I don't have terribly strong feelings on it.  I, personally, prefer games that strongly encourage the type of behavior that makes the game fun.  I don't mind going along with the system, because there are lots of different ways to play, and I find a whole lot of them fun.  So if the game system rewards me for one particular thing, I'll have fun doing that thing, and reap the rewards.

Other folks had other opinions.  The Currency thread clearly wasn't the place for them.  So I made a place, and this thread is that place.  Have at it, folks!

I saw the thread title "Currency" and gave it a low priority to read.  I thought it would be about Gold vs. Silver pieces, or different coins and their use historically.

Clarity in thread titles (and avoiding the desire to coin new jargony terms) would be a good thing.

The more coercive the means, the less I am interested. I don't like being dictated to, and I don't like dictating.

-clash

I must agree with Clash. In games I write I prefer to offer advice on what elements should be emphasized in play but it is just that, advice. Fun is far too subjective a term to have meaning. More a case of fun, the way to attain fun play and what constitutes fun is different depending on the players and GM. Therefore, when I offer advice on who to play/run a game of mine, it is usually "listen to your group and what the GM thinks is entertaining" not "employ method one to process A and you will have fun. If you do not, then you are doing it wrong."

In the end, I respect games that are clear and honest about the elements of play they emphasize as opposed to what the designer thinks is neat.

Bill

Nearly all games enforce a particular type of behaviour -- it's how you "win" the game.  Kick the ball in the net.  Collect mushrooms.  Find the treasure.

Games can (and should) encourage the type of behaviour that leads to winning the game.

RPGs all have ways to win and lose -- but they're often more subtle that other games, and there are a wide variety of them.  Is it roleplaying well?  Creating a great story?  Tactical mastery?  Telling funny jokes?  Tricking the other players?  Solving the puzzle? Creating a deeply immersive experience?  etc.   Many RPGs try to support various ways to win and lose concurrently.

Quote from: StuartNearly all games enforce a particular type of behaviour -- it's how you "win" the game.  Kick the ball in the net.  Collect mushrooms.  Find the treasure.

Games can (and should) encourage the type of behaviour that leads to winning the game.

RPGs all have ways to win and lose -- but they're often more subtle that other games, and there are a wide variety of them.  Is it roleplaying well?  Creating a great story?  Tactical mastery?  Telling funny jokes?  Tricking the other players?  Solving the puzzle? Creating a deeply immersive experience?  etc.   Many RPGs try to support various ways to win and lose concurrently.

I would argue this point only in the definition of win. It is again, self defined. The system should not tell you the "winning" condition in an RPG. You (the player or GM) define the winning condition. In some games, it is killing all other players while that would be out of the question with a different group. However, both can be played with the same system and setting. Win conditions are agreed upon, either implicitly or expressly stated, when the group plays. This may even change from campaign to campaign.

It is one of the primary things that newbies to role-playing often struggle with.

Bill

Some RPGs include a built-in win condition.

In D&D you "win" by leveling up.  You level up by getting XP.  You get XP by killing monsters, dealing with traps, and collecting treasure.

If you don't do any of the things to gain XP, you don't level up, and don't "win".

You can run around in lots of video games and avoid scoring points.  In Defender you can shoot all the little waving men if you want to.

The game DOES include a standard way to "win" though.

There are of course many RPGs with no XP equivalent.

Stuart: regarding XP:

XP is one motivation. But let's look at people playing D&D at Cons, or in online play by post games where (usually) no XP is awarded. Or the D&D Open which is a three round competitive elimination played at Gen Con:

XP doesn't factor in for any of those.

Also you have to think of all the times you've seen the regrettable advice "don't track XP- just say the characters only level up when the Dm says they do"..

I can accept that XP isn't the actual win for everyone. Having multiple ways to play through is nothing but good.

*Shrug*

I like it when a game tells me, straight up, what I will be doing in it.

I would not like it, however, if a game tried to add "and that's all you'll be doing" to the end of that.

Quote from: StuartSome RPGs include a built-in win condition.

In D&D you "win" by leveling up.  You level up by getting XP.  You get XP by killing monsters, dealing with traps, and collecting treasure.

If you don't do any of the things to gain XP, you don't level up, and don't "win".

You can run around in lots of video games and avoid scoring points.  In Defender you can shoot all the little waving men if you want to.

The game DOES include a standard way to "win" though.

There are of course many RPGs with no XP equivalent.

AM said it above. This is not necessarily a system defined win. It is a method of play, a motivation and if one chooses, a means of defining a win situation. I question the last one since a win situation tends to (IMO) be a resolution, an end. I win! is not usually followed by I continue to play! You might play again but to win usually means a final solution. For instance, in football you score goals during the game but when the preset time limit has elapsed you determine the winner by totaling the points. Again, though, let me stress, you could (your group, you personally, your GM or any combination) decide that when you level up you are winning the game.

For RPGs, it is just a nebulous concept. In the end, informing someone about a game, the strengths and weaknesses of a system/setting, and communicating that in a non-authoritarian mode is a good thing IMHO.

Bill

Every game tells you how to play.

Quote from: droogEvery game tells you how to play.

But does anyone listen?

:-)

Quote from: Erik BoielleBut does anyone listen?

:-)

YMMV

I think the trick is knowing when to give guidence and when to back the hell off.

All the real greats tell you what you are going to be doing - you are vampires playing politics, you are adventurers trawling tombs for loot and whores, you are gods watchmen here to solve problems, you are investigators here to investigate the creepy house your uncle has left you - and then broadly back off, allowing people the flexibility they need to customise the experience to their own particular needs.

The real magic is in knowing when to give guidance, and when to give people their head.

Brand Robins says

Quotethe real art is of making a game in which the mechanics matter and make play portably fun, but still allow for group control of the variables that hit their particular needs and rhythms. Dogs and TSOY both rock because they do this: they have strong core visions and systems that none-the-less have lots of places where Vincent and Clinton say "your group will have to decide how that works for you." It works because the issues core to the game and the fruitful void are constructed and protected, and both designers made sure to work those correctly. They then also realized where it wasn't so important to make the game work one way, and left those areas open and malleable.

I see a lot of games these days that err too much to one side or the other. The old model, of course, was to leave way too much up to the group for portability to work. But I've seen a lot of newer Indie games that don't leave enough open. They're so tightly wound that there isn't a place for the individual group to get their fingers into it. The game is a solid little ball that will only bounce one way, and so becomes less portable and replayable and more one shot and disposable.

I also see a lot of players making the error of thinking that because a game is portable it must also be sealed and only work if played as tight as possible. I think a lot of people miss the potential of a lot of games because they don't take advantages of the places where the game is loose, and so never get that "individual group experience" that makes RPGs such a unique medium.

which I didn't really want to post because its full of the mutual masturbation so typical of the forge, and I like Vampire and find it entirely portable muthfucka, but I broadly agree with the point.

Quote from: droogEvery game tells you how to play.

True, but some games phrase this in the form of polite suggestions and recommendations, while others strap you in a rules straightjacket and push you down a greased slide with a kick in the arse. Railroading is no longer the sole domain of GMs - now designers are getting in on the fun.

-clash