Luke Gearing gives a challenge to reward driven play

#22

If you want an example of how to write a game with no reward driven play:

Imagine »

No conflict – No game master – No dice or other means that provides random outcomes – No prep – No tangible rewards – No acting-in-character – No fantastic elements – No campaign – No mechanical improvements – No 200+ pages to read only to be able to play the game.

I wanted to make a game that created investment in fiction (immersion, but in story). Had no idea if the game was fun, or (more importantly) how it would be fun … but it was, and created investment in a character in under an hour. You could also play this game by yourself, but I think something will be lost due to the lack of uncertainties that the other participants brings (by how the game wants the group to talk to each other).

I guess The Murder of Mr. Crow, also featured in the link, is a game without tangible rewards. Just a game loop, with instructions, that is continuously repeated.

3 Likes
#23

I find this game interesting. It still has quite a bit of rules, but more to guide play, making it almost like ritual acts. For this discussion, none of the rules seem to reward a certain type of behavior, except perhaps keeping it simple, relaxed and ‘the first thing you’re thinking about’. I’d be interested to try it out (not likely at the moment) or to watch an example of it being played.

#24

I was actually agreeing with you – basically: Optimizers gonna optimize, so you might as well get them to optimize on something that won’t lead down the path to murderhobo-no-personality, and people who don’t care about rewards don’t care about rewards, so there’s no harm done. :wink:

2 Likes
#25

Thanks for the check-in. I don’t precisely feel “attacked” so much as feel like I’m coming back to a tired old argument where it feels like people are trying to say “system doesn’t matter” because all you need is a “cowboy on the cover.”

I think people are still doing this, but maybe not here. Itch.io is FULL of crazy experimental games.

3 Likes
#26

I don’t think the argument here is that system doesn’t matter. I think system still does matter. (look at @Rickard’s game above)

I think the question is wether the system needs to reward a player for certain behaviors and/or punish other behaviors. It doesn’t mean it’s now forbidden, but questioning wether or not it needs to be a requirement. Wether or not people will already act that way in the game. And if the behavior is already automatic, does it need a system to guarantee it?

2 Likes
#27

I don’t think the argument here is that system doesn’t matter. I think system still does matter. (look at @Rickard’s game above)

That’s not really the vibe I got from some of the statements made earlier. I’m glad we’ve moved past that.

I don’t think a system ever “needs” to do anything – name anything that systems “need” to do and I will find you a successful system that doesn’t do it. :wink: As a corrolary, I don’t think discussing what a system “needs” to do is useful. There are many things a system can do, but none of them are requirements. The interesting part of game design for me is looking at the things you could include and then deciding, based on how they impact the game, which ones you should include?

So really, shouldn’t we be discussing the effects of doing or not doing certain things?

Also, I think it’s never a good idea to assume that any behavior is going to be “automatic”; I’d even go so far as to say that nothing is really ‘automatic’. Everything about games is learned in some way. As a result, if something is ‘automatic’ for a given group, the odds are really good that it’s actually a habit that they have either formed unwittingly or deliberately cultivated.

1 Like
#28

My apologies for that then. I mainly post these things to form an opinion, not because mine is already set in stone. I do like the thought-experiment mindset that goes “but what if no rewards?” to make it extreme to see what that would do. As such I often play devils advocate and challenge opinions posted. I learn from the answers given. Many have good points.

3 Likes
#29

There is a lot of things going on “under the hood”, and I wrote more about that in [Imagine] Using my own theory to create it. The thread is painted by my “theory of engagement”, so only a minor part of the text is talking about the topic in this thread.

Imagine also written as a process, and humans have a hard time understanding it. It’s like trying to predict the outcome of Chess before actually playing it. So the game needs to be played to be understood. That’s how I understood my game, at least. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#30

he he, guess I misunderstood your point then? But yeah, all is good - and I think driven play is a tool, like any other

1 Like
#31

Yeah, I dunno. Sure, no game needs rewards to be complete. No game needs anything. There are quite a few systems that are literally incomprehensible… So if you frame this question as “is this truly necessary?” the answer is obviously no and we can all go out and eat something. I’m more interesting in thinking “in what ways is this useful?” “how can we use this tool?” “can this tool be self-defeating?” I won’t repeat myself, but I think that in-game XP for actions that underscore a game’s themes help it emerge naturally from gameplay.

3 Likes
#32

Games do need uncertainty and challenge, in my opinion, and a clear goal. I would say all tasks we do (and think is interesting) need this to a certain degree. Some lean more heavily towards uncertainty, and some is mainly about the challenge.

1 Like
#33

Uncertainly maybe, but there are plenty of enjoyable TTRPGs out there with no challenge.

1 Like
#34

Depends on where you draw the line. I mean, even the most railroaded experience can test the players, even if they don’t have anything to say, but they still need to imagine it in their head in certain ways. Reading a book is a challenge, or at least being invested in a book. I can hardly think that investment can grow without challenge. There have to be some sort of participation, and challenge will follow that. Perhaps “participation” is a better word for it, but that implies that the participant is doing something active - you can be invested even if you’re taking a passive part (see the second sentence for an example).

Even reading this post is a challenge, in my opinion.

#35

I think that makes the definition of “challenge” pretty useless. =/

If doing anything is a challenge, then nothing is a challenge. I’m not really left with any sense of what you are actually saying is needed/desirable here. Some of my best game experiences were completely unchallenging. Heck, there’s an entire category of fun (“submission”) which I think is more or less exclusive of challenge.

Maybe there’s a different term you could use? “Participation” tells me more, honestly, than this “everything is a challenge” definition, but then you say you don’t think it’s right, so I’m just lost.

1 Like
#36

I agree. Definitions can be stretched to a point where they become meaningless. My mind went in another direction. In a game without a rules-dictated challenge, people might set their own challenges or goals.
“In this game of Fall of Magic, I want to try and find ways to give my character a special theme.” or “In this session, I will try to talk in my pirate voice the entire time.”

1 Like
#37

Yup! Or they can just relax and do what comes to mind, or whatever in between. And not all “goals” are “challenges” so they might have a goal that’s not difficult, just different, and so on.

1 Like
#38

It’s more to acknowledge that challenge is a thing to consider.

I usually hate scales with two oppositions, because I think they obstruct the ability to see more possibilities, but I think of games/activities as on a scale, where there is challenge on one side and uncertainty on another. So yeah, I agree that no challenge could be a thing (or a challenge that is so easy it’s not really a challenge at all, just a minor nuisance).

Solving crosswords can be (almost) without uncertainty, and playing craps is (almost) without a challenge.

887×201 7.33 KB

I do think it’s important to acknowledge both - to really think about how they are present - when creating a game. Chess, as well as roleplaying games, have the other participant(s) as an uncertainty, to give an example.

1 Like
#39

It seems a little odd to me to set it up on a scale, not because I’m opposed to scales, but because I don’t really think there’s any relationship between “challenge” and “uncertainty” and increasing one doesn’t necessarily decrease the other.

But really, I think the thing that needs to be recognized here is that TTRPGs almost universally have uncertainty. Even if you strip dice and randomizers out, anytime you are playing with other people, there is uncertainty. Maybe in some solo games there’s “no” uncertainty, but I don’t really think even that is the case, unless you have plotted the entire “story” in your head ahead of time.

So, even if I accept that your scale is true, since every game has uncertainty, you do not, necessarily, “need” (ugh, “need” is such a weird thing to even be discussing here, IMHO) to add any challenge. You CAN have challenge, if you want to, and that creates a different type of game, but to say you “need” it, well, I can’t really agree.

1 Like
#40

but because I don’t really think there’s any relationship between “challenge” and “uncertainty” and increasing one doesn’t necessarily decrease the other.

The more randomness you have, the less control you got. Do note that the scale says “participation” and “uncertainty”. There is a jump between participation and challenge, just as it’s a jump between curiosity and uncertainty - something must happen in between those. You don’t get curious just because something is uncertain.

I think this is the last thing I will say about this, because this discussion is kinda stale, because I’m just repeating myself. I’m talking from a high level of abstraction, where you need some sort of obstruction, otherwise things will become boring, just as well as you need uncertainty for the very same thing. At least in games. Simple flow thinking.

But sure, I can clean in order to make my spouse happy (or make myself feel good). No real uncertainty, apart from my expectation of her reaction. The same could be said about preparing an adventure. And there could be parts where you have all uncertainty, like randomizing a map through a hex grid.

So I agree with you there. Specific elements within a game can have purely one, but the sweet spot is usually around the middle (tension). A meaningful decision have about the same amount of uncertainty and enough information to come to a conclusion. A chess game have (apart from the opponent) emergent complexity, where so many things can happen that it’s hard to predict the outcome.

What are you working on right now?
#41

So apparently, when I was lying in bed last night, I thought of this.

Another advantage to “incentives” is that they give “permission” to people to do things they might not otherwise do. I think this is sortof similar to how rules and dice allow the GM to say “It wasn’t me who made that bad thing happen, it was the dice!” having incentives allows players to say “I did it for the XP!” and for people to understand that, yes, that’s kinda the point of the game. The game is clearly telling you to do that thing. So you don’t need to apologize for doing it.

This does mean that you need to be really kinda careful with what kind of behaviors your system incentivizes (See: Murder Hobo) but it’s possibly the most powerful thing about incentives.

1 Like