1            The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games

     2     [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |

     3     Forge  [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums

     4 

     5 

     6     Applied Theory

     7     by [8]M.J. Young

     8 

     9      Introduction

    10 

    11     There are among gamers those who like to theorize, to attempt to

    12     understand and explain our hobby, why we do what we do, and why it works

    13     when it does. For some gamers, this makes no sense. We play to have fun;

    14     we design games in whatever way seems to be the most fun. Some despise

    15     theory, and see no use in it. If you have no use for theory, then this

    16     material's only offering is that perhaps someone else might. I am among

    17     those for whom theories are fundamental, so I would be interested in

    18     theories if they had no practical value to anyone. However, since I

    19     think that theory is the foundation for action, I can't imagine any

    20     theory that would have no practical application. I am thus exploring the

    21     practical application of role playing game theory.

    22 

    23     Specifically, I'm looking at the theory commonly known as GNS. This

    24     theory suggests that role play styles divide into Gamists who enjoy

    25     facing the challenges of play, Narrativists who enjoy great stories that

    26     involve themes or issues, and Simulationists who seek to know what

    27     another reality might be like. The theory, which owes much to many

    28     people over many years including the discussions on the

    29     rec.games.frp.advocacy newsgroup, first took this form with these names

    30     when formulated by Ron Edwards in his article [9]System Does Matter,

    31     originally published on [10]Gaming Outpost, but since lost and

    32     republished at The Forge. Mr. Edwards has expanded on this theory with

    33     [11]several other articles, and debates and discussions of the details

    34     have been held on the forums of several gamer web sites. Periodically in

    35     those discussions, someone suggests that the theory isn't much use,

    36     because it doesn't tell you how to design a better game.

    37 

    38     In response to this, it can be and often is answered that this is not

    39     really a theory about how to design games. It's a theory about what

    40     gamers are seeking when they play, and as such has its most effective

    41     application as a diagnostic tool for play groups that seem to be

    42     internally at odds. In this context, if we have players who are trying

    43     to get different things out of the game, having some terminology and

    44     definitions by which to discuss what each is seeking can be invaluable

    45     in resolving conflict. If all GNS theory did was resolve such conflicts,

    46     it would be valuable. However, one cannot read so much as the title of

    47     that first article, System Does Matter, without absorbing the idea that

    48     game design itself is part of the problem, and therefore could be part

    49     of the solution. Those who are asking how to do narrativist, or gamist,

    50     or simulationist design are asking valid questions; the answers

    51     generally given to these budding designers have been inadequate, as they

    52     in essence amount to telling people to design whatever they like and

    53     then test it through play to see how it works.

    54 

    55     Answers need not be quite so nebulous in this area. Once the theory is

    56     understood, there are aspects to it which suggest practical approaches

    57     to designing consistent games that support particular sorts of play.

    58     This isn't about rules heavy versus rules light design, or about setting

    59     detail, or even about things like whether you play your character in the

    60     first person or the third person or have control over things beyond the

    61     character. It's about how to create games which support and facilitate

    62     one approach to play under the theory. Once you have the basic concept

    63     of a game idea, application of the theory can greatly aid many of the

    64     design details.

    65 

    66     Game design has many areas; no one area will completely control how the

    67     game is played, nor is it necessary for design priorities to be

    68     considered in relation to all of these areas to be effective. The social

    69     context of the gaming group playing the game can have a significant

    70     impact on whether the game works at all, and whether it is played as

    71     designed. Once it is agreed that a particular group of players is

    72     interested in playing a particular kind of game, designing to that

    73     desire need not be so mysterious as some imply. Character generation,

    74     resolution mechanics, credibility distribution, advancement, and rewards

    75     are some of the aspects of design through which particular GNS

    76     preferences can be facilitated, and designers can devise approaches to

    77     each of these through such considerations long before test play begins.

    78 

    79     Underpinning this article, which will be somewhere on the edge between

    80     theory and practice, is this basic principle: conduct will be preferred

    81     if it is rewarded, and avoided if it is penalized.

    82 

    83     There's a lot to cover, so coverage will of necessity be sketchy;

    84     however, it is hoped that this will provide some foundation for

    85     practical applications of the theory to game design.

    86 

    87      Character Generation

    88 

    89     Nearly all role playing games include a section on how to create a

    90     character. Very few give more than a line or two to considering what you

    91     are creating when you do so. Failure to consider this aspect leads to

    92     design problems; in GNS terms, an understanding of what you are creating

    93     is far more important than how you are creating it. Put another way, if

    94     you know what you're creating, how to do that will more often than not

    95     fall into place. Too many games create characters without thought to

    96     what they are. Characters are not really people; they are functional

    97     components of a game world which are manipulated by players to achieve

    98     goals. They are, in a word, tools. It is at this point in play that you

    99     are attempting to guide the players into designing the right tools.

   100 

   101     Put that way, it becomes obvious that GNS considerations are very

   102     important to the question of what you are designing. If you guide the

   103     players into designing hammers, they're going to wind up with tools that

   104     are very good for hitting things; if you want them instead to write

   105     stories, you need to have them design pens. You need the right tool for

   106     the job; if you don't have it, there will be a tendency to try to make

   107     the job fit the tool.

   108 

   109     So what kinds of tools are needed for the major types of jobs?

   110 

   111     Gamist tools are easy to recognize and easy to design. A gamist

   112     character has to be up to the challenges which lie ahead. What that

   113     means in detail depends on the nature of the game in play and the

   114     preferences of the designer. Some gamist characters can be extremely

   115     focused on the central challenges of the game. Combat is the most common

   116     example of this, and a character's effectiveness in a certain type of

   117     gamist design would be measured by his abilities to deal damage and

   118     survive damage, to stand up to the fight. In a very different sort of

   119     game, racing could be the challenge, and character design would be

   120     narrowly about how fast the character is without reference to much else.

   121     However, skill-driven games can also have a strong gamist design

   122     foundation, if the skills are geared to meet potential in-game

   123     challenges. Driving or piloting skill, medical skill, hacking, picking

   124     locks, and hiding are all candidates for gamist design, because they are

   125     there to provide the player with options, ways to beat challenges

   126     presented in play.

   127 

   128     That's not to say that narrativist characters can't have either power or

   129     skills; they can. However, narrativist characters need to be connected

   130     to the world. They need to be built such that things matter to them, and

   131     they matter to things.

   132 

   133     Just as there are multiple ways to design a character effective against

   134     the challenges ahead, so too there are multiple ways to integrate a

   135     character into the world. Creating relationships with other characters

   136     is a valuable factor; giving the character beliefs or principles which

   137     will be challenged by events is also useful. Character history and

   138     character goals might matter, provided these are of a sort from which

   139     issues arise. A long-standing feud might be merely fodder for another

   140     fight; done right, it might become an issue for exploration. To build a

   141     narrativist tool, you should have something that is already tied in to

   142     the ideas you hope to explore.

   143 

   144     Simulationist tools are perhaps the most difficult to see or to design.

   145     There is a sense in which no words which describe a simulationist

   146     character don't apply equally well to another sort. He must be

   147     effective, able to change his world; but then, gamist characters must be

   148     effective in that sense. He must be human, seeming like a real person;

   149     this is true of narrativist characters, certainly. Perhaps the most

   150     important characteristic of a simulationist character is that he must be

   151     accurate, that is, he must clearly express something real and credible

   152     within the setting such that he has exactly the amount of impact on

   153     events and persons around him that he should have, no more and no less.

   154 

   155     This does not mean and should not be confused to mean that a

   156     simulationist character is more detailed than any other. A simulationist

   157     character could have history, principles, character, goals,

   158     relationships, skills, and all the things that support other forms of

   159     play; he could as easily be three numbers on a statistics sheet defining

   160     his effectiveness. What matters is that he is given form as an

   161     integrated part of the world, where he fits as if he were born and

   162     raised within it. To understand him is to understand the essentials of

   163     the world in which he lives, and vice versa. He is what he is, and in

   164     some sense not what anyone outside his world wants him to be. He is in

   165     the world and of the world, and as a tool he reveals the world to us

   166     through himself.

   167 

   168     Now that we've got some idea of what kind of tool, what sort of

   169     character, we're trying to create, how do we create him? Do we use point

   170     systems for gamist characters, lifepaths for narrativists, and dice for

   171     simulationists? Wrong on all counts. Those methodological considerations

   172     in themselves have nothing to do with what we are creating. You can

   173     create any sort of character with any of them.

   174 

   175     Take lifepaths for an example. We could start a character in his teens

   176     and move him, by a combination of die rolls and choices, through

   177     military training, education, private sector work, and other areas

   178     through which he builds up skills that prepare him for the challenges

   179     which will come. We might instead start a character younger, take him

   180     through his early years, develop school friends, relationships, family

   181     connections, life partners, coupled with the sort of moments that form

   182     opinions and beliefs, and so derive someone ready to explore the themes

   183     of the game. We could have a much broader selection of options, creating

   184     characters who have far less focus and more breadth of background and

   185     experience, who thus feel more real, as the tools we will use to explore

   186     the world. The idea of using lifepaths didn't matter; it was the way we

   187     used them that made the difference. It isn't how you build the

   188     character, but what kind of character you build. You'll certainly have

   189     to adjust the character generation system to build the right sort of

   190     character, and you might find that you have more luck making one

   191     mechanic type work than another for what you wish to do, but the answer

   192     isn't so much in the type of mechanic as in the targeted result.

   193 

   194     I make some suggestions on character generation systems in [12]Game

   195     Ideas Unlimited: CharGen (which gives some general thoughts and focuses

   196     on freeform design) and [13]Game Ideas Unlimited: Negative Points (ways

   197     to smooth out some of the problems in dice and points systems).

   198 

   199      Resolution Mechanics

   200 

   201     Mr. Edwards has said that system within a game is the equivalent of

   202     time. To understand this, you have to understand something about time:

   203     it is the medium for change. Without time, nothing changes. In the game,

   204     the system determines what happens, what changes; without it, nothing

   205     changes. Thus the system determines and controls change, and therefore

   206     is effectively time for the imagined world.

   207 

   208     Yet this, too, can be very important in supporting or impeding GNS

   209     preferences. How outcomes are resolved matters very much.

   210 

   211     Although it has been said many times, it is worth saying again that

   212     diceless systems don't in themselves support narrativist play. They may

   213     be used for narrativist play, but they may equally be used for gamist or

   214     simulationist play. So, too, such general matters as dice pools, bell

   215     curves, granularity, and the other aspects of system which garner so

   216     much discussion (particularly from system monkeys) are not in themselves

   217     relevant to GNS concerns. As with character generation, it is what you

   218     do that matters, and not these questions of how you do it.

   219 

   220     What are you attempting to do? The function of system is to provide the

   221     medium for change; more specifically, resolution mechanics are there to

   222     empower players to make the kinds of changes they wish to make within

   223     the game world and to interact with the consequences. To the gamist,

   224     resolution mechanics are in a sense both the obstacles to overcome and

   225     the means by which to overcome them. To the narrativist, they are the

   226     means by which the theme impacts the character and the character

   227     addresses the theme. In simulationist play, these are both the

   228     limitations on change and the power to explore it.

   229 

   230     For gamist mechanics, you want something resolute; there usually needs

   231     to be clear victory conditions, clear failure conditions. It also helps

   232     if the system is responsive to player choice, that is, if there are ways

   233     that the player, through his character, can impact the probability of

   234     success. This could arise from strategy, or from skill or equipment

   235     choice, or from any decision which should and does give the character an

   236     advantage. Few things are more frustrating to gamist play than for the

   237     character to do things that seem to the player to make sense as ways to

   238     improve the odds, only to have these amount to no effect.

   239 

   240     Even unrealistic strategies are helpful as gamist tools. A game that

   241     gives combat bonuses for sound, conservative defensive strategy can be

   242     very gamist, but so can one which gives combat bonuses for brash and

   243     brazen boldness, charging, screaming, doing over-the-top stunts. What

   244     matters is not how the bonuses are earned, but that in fact it is

   245     possible to manipulate the chance of success through character choices.

   246 

   247     Although combat is the example here, it should not be thought that it's

   248     only in combat that such things matter. If a character can improve his

   249     chance to pick a lock or hack a computer or repair a wound by taking

   250     particular actions, this gives support to gamist play. There is a

   251     challenge to meet. The resolution system will tell whether or not the

   252     player succeeded, with certainty, but the player has the ability to

   253     tweak his chance of success through his approach to the problem.

   254 

   255     Although it may sound strange to say that a resolution mechanic need not

   256     be resolute, for narrativist play it is often better that it not be. A

   257     gamist wants to know whether he succeeded or failed; a narrativist wants

   258     to know whether his efforts had an impact. In a combat mechanic for the

   259     use of guns, it is quite sufficient for a gamist system to determine

   260     whether the shot hit the opponent and how severe the injury is; for a

   261     narrativist system, things are probably a lot fuzzier (from a certain

   262     perspective). The shot should have the power to frighten the opponent

   263     and cause him to flee, for example. From the gamist perspective, that

   264     would be a miss; from a narrativist perspective, that's a success. Thus

   265     it helps narrativism if the resolution mechanic provides more of a

   266     degree of success rather than a strict success/failure determination.

   267 

   268     Simulationism wants to know what would actually happen, given the

   269     assumptions of the setting. That doesn't mean realistic, in the ordinary

   270     sense; it means believable within the bounds of the imagined world. A

   271     fighter putting his spear in the ground and then using it as a bracing

   272     point as he runs across the chests of his adversaries kicking them is

   273     not terribly realistic, but it does fit the imagined reality of a

   274     certain sort of world, and thus could be incorporated into simulationist

   275     play in that world. In fact, if it has been established that a

   276     particular fighter can do that, simulationist play would dictate that he

   277     do so in any situation in which that would be the obvious response,

   278     unless there is reason to think he would do something else at that

   279     moment.

   280 

   281     Thus resolution mechanics which support simulationist play are those

   282     which make outcomes correct within the setting. Much as with

   283     narrativism, this is often served by some form of relative success and

   284     relative failure, a determination of how well the character did; but

   285     like gamism, this generally needs to be resolute. A simulationist

   286     doesn't just want to know that he missed; he wants to know how close he

   287     came to hitting.

   288 

   289     It might help put the entire question of resolution mechanics in

   290     perspective by imagining that a character runs, perhaps fleeing from an

   291     attacker. The gamist wants to know whether he ran fast enough. The

   292     narrativist wants to know how running mattered. The simulationist wants

   293     to know how fast he ran. Although in a sense, all three are concerned

   294     about escaping the adversary, they view this in different ways.

   295 

   296      Credibility Distribution

   297 

   298     Before anything can be said about credibility distribution, some

   299     explanation of what this means is important.

   300 

   301     In roleplaying theory, it is recognized that there is within the game a

   302     shared imagined reality in which actions occur. Players, including the

   303     referee, contribute to the content of this reality through statements

   304     made to each other. These statements amount to, "This is what I want to

   305     have happen in our shared imagined world."

   306 

   307     Of course, player statements may be contradictory; after all, players

   308     have different aims. Bob's character and Bill's character might get into

   309     a fight, and Bob might say that his character hits Bill's in the nose,

   310     to which Bill answers that his character ducks that punch and knocks

   311     Bob's to the floor. Now we need to know what actually happens in our

   312     shared imaginative space, or we're no longer imagining the same reality.

   313     Game systems must apportion credibility to address these issues.

   314     Credibility is the degree to which any person at the table has the power

   315     to define what is happening in the shared space.

   316 

   317     You might think that in traditional games, only the referee has

   318     credibility. That is incorrect. All players have a measured amount of

   319     credibility. The referee rarely is able to say what actions any player's

   320     character would take--only whether he succeeded in that action. Thus

   321     non-referee players have credibility, too, even in such games, as they

   322     get to state what their characters attempt. Credibility means someone

   323     gets to decide what rules apply to the situation, when resolution

   324     mechanics are used, what the dice mean, and ultimately what happens in

   325     the shared space; it also means stating what actions characters are

   326     attempting, what they are saying to each other, and how they are

   327     reacting. Credibility is always shared. The issue is how it is shared.

   328 

   329     This is sometimes confused with something called narration rights, that

   330     is, who gets to describe the scene. There is some connection between the

   331     two, but it is not absolute. For example, a game could state that each

   332     player at the table is allowed to contribute one fact which must be

   333     included in the outcome of the event, and then the player who has the

   334     narration rights must state what happened in such a manner that all of

   335     these facts are included. He himself might not have determined anything

   336     that happened despite narrating all of it. In most instances, narration

   337     rights include credibility; yet even in games which pass narration

   338     rights around, it may be the case that the referee can veto something

   339     stated in the narration if it goes counter to something known to him but

   340     not revealed to the players.

   341 

   342     Gamist play is best supported in most cases by narrowly and clearly

   343     delineated credibility. Because the point of play is to overcome the

   344     challenge, it is not usually effective for the player facing the

   345     challenge to decide that he was successful. Since it is also possible

   346     that the players may find themselves in competition, it would be equally

   347     problematic for that decision to be made by a potentially opposing

   348     player. It is important to gamist play that credibility be clearly

   349     distributed, and that the player who determines the outcome does not

   350     himself have a stake in the outcome. This is why traditional games

   351     placed this power with the referee. He was viewed as the neutral

   352     arbiter, and as long as the players trusted his neutrality he could

   353     determine what occurred in the game world without problem. It is not

   354     impossible to eliminate the role of the referee from gamist play, but to

   355     do so the design must clearly establish who has credibility under each

   356     circumstance, so that disputes do not occur over success and failure.

   357     Too much player credibility can actually thwart gamist play preferences,

   358     since a player who can merely decide his character has been successful

   359     has lost all sense that there was any challenge to the victory.

   360 

   361     This does not mean that players cannot be given credibility beyond the

   362     control of their character actions. The credibility to add color and

   363     detail to a scene are not contrary to gamist concerns. What matters is

   364     that such credibility cannot provide ways to eliminate the challenge

   365     itself. As one of my sons observed, you can't give the gamist player the

   366     power to invent a plus four sword lying on the table within reach and

   367     expect the game to be functional at a gamist level. The challenge must

   368     be maintained.

   369 

   370     Narrativism usually requires more credibility in the hands of the

   371     players. Players are not competing with each other nor trying to beat

   372     the game, so giving them credibility is not detrimental to play in the

   373     same way it tends to be for gamist play. Rather, players need to be

   374     empowered to address the theme. Director stance, that is, the ability

   375     for the character players to add elements to the setting and events on

   376     the fly, is not uncommon in narrativist play. It is not essential to it,

   377     but works better with it than it does with the other preferences.

   378     Severely restricting credibility tends to stifle narrativist play, as it

   379     takes from the players their ability to make the statements they wish to

   380     make.

   381 

   382     It is much more difficult to address credibility distribution in

   383     simulationism. What matters here is the verisimilitude and consistency

   384     of the shared imagined reality; that is, all players must see the same

   385     thing and believe it. This does not preclude broadly shared credibility;

   386     it does require a solid agreement on the nature of the reality. If we're

   387     playing in a medieval fantasy world, exploring an abandoned castle, a

   388     player given credibility could announce that he saw objects on a table,

   389     and describe the objects he saw. As long as those objects do not upset

   390     the agreed nature of the reality, such credibility is not problematic.

   391     Thus it is evident that the objects could include bottles and lamps,

   392     perhaps swords and daggers, possibly jewelry, all things which would

   393     typically be found on such tables. Were the player to describe seeing

   394     laser guns or kinetic blasters there, this would clearly violate the

   395     agreed reality, and his credibility would cease at that moment. However,

   396     there are difficult cases here. The player might describe finding the

   397     famed lost jewel of Prince Balthazzar, or opening a bottle to release a

   398     djinni, or discovering a scroll with a map to a hidden treasure. These,

   399     too, are all plausible within the setting, but may be stretching the

   400     credibility of the player. For this reason, it is more common for

   401     simulationist games to prefer narrower credibility for the players and

   402     broader credibility for the referee. It is not a necessary arrangement,

   403     but it does tend to support simulationism better.

   404 

   405     Again, credibility distribution does not determine the sort of play that

   406     will occur in itself; it tends to support different preferences when

   407     configured different ways, and thought should be given to the amount of

   408     credibility players should have to facilitate reaching their goals.

   409 

   410      Advancement

   411 

   412     It must be asked whether it is necessary for characters to improve

   413     during play; the answer is that this is never necessary. It is not

   414     necessary for simulationist play, certainly not for narrativist play,

   415     and surprisingly not for gamist play. However, it is often desirable in

   416     each mode that characters have the power to improve and advance in some

   417     sense. The more significant question is, in what sense can the character

   418     advance?

   419 

   420     Most of us are conditioned to think of character advancement or

   421     improvement in strictly gamist terms: a character advances by getting

   422     better at what he does. That is, his ability to face the challenges

   423     increases. That there could be character advancement that has nothing

   424     whatever to do with this is surprising to many players. Yet

   425     consideration of this mode of improvement should give us some clues

   426     regarding how to improve characters for simulationist and narrativist

   427     play.

   428 

   429     In discussing character generation, it was recognized that the character

   430     was a tool which the player used to achieve goals. Improving a character

   431     means making it into a better tool. Thus if a starting character in a

   432     gamist game is a rubber mallet, improvement might take it through stages

   433     of being a tack hammer, claw hammer, ball peen hammer, sledge hammer,

   434     jack hammer, and ultimately pile driver. That is, the character gets

   435     more effective at meeting the challenge, because it is a tool designed

   436     to meet challenges.

   437 

   438     If we consider the function of the narrativist character, we find that

   439     it exists to enable the player to address the theme, and as such it has

   440     to be tied in to the issues of play. Improving the character means

   441     connecting it more deeply or in new ways with the theme. It can mean

   442     deeper commitments, stronger relationships, more determined moral

   443     positions; it could also mean greater conflicts, increased doubts, more

   444     personal connections. In a game exploring issues of sexual identity, a

   445     character who has always decried homosexuality as a moral perversion

   446     could be advanced by the discovery that his best friend is homosexual,

   447     creating a tension between his friendship and his beliefs. It's not

   448     impossible for narrativist characters to get better at things they do,

   449     but it is far more supportive of narrativist play for them to advance by

   450     becoming more integrated into the issues. The tool that started as a pen

   451     has advanced to becoming a word processor: it is now able to address the

   452     issues at new levels and in more facets.

   453 

   454     Since simulationist play is about exploring the imagined reality,

   455     character advancement is best if it enhances that ability to explore.

   456     Our magnifying glass gradually advances to an electron microscope; our

   457     field glasses to become the Hubble telescope. The particulars of how

   458     this works are greatly dependent on what the game is exploring. If the

   459     exploration is of a physical world, greater mobility within that world

   460     is the logical route to improvement. Given exploration of a complex

   461     society, increased contacts and exposure within the society provide the

   462     answer. Exploration of historic or fictional events requires greater

   463     access to the events. Combat effectiveness or skill improvement can be

   464     simulationist if these empower the player to explore more difficult or

   465     dangerous areas of the game world. The variety of possibilities makes it

   466     difficult to be specific, but the answer in any situation is found the

   467     same way: identify what the tool facilitates, and how to make it

   468     facilitate this more effectively. One thing that is consistent across

   469     simulationist play in this area is that character advancement, like

   470     everything else, must mesh with the in-game reality. A character

   471     exploring the setting by working as a local reporter can advance through

   472     being assigned to a larger beat, but only if it makes sense in the

   473     context of the world that this character would receive that assignment.

   474 

   475     Again, it is not necessary in any style of play for characters to

   476     improve or advance. Gamist play can be about beating increasingly

   477     difficult opponents with the same resources with which you started.

   478     Narrativist play can interact with the world through a static character.

   479     Simulationist play can be limited to that which the character can

   480     access. All play styles can be enhanced by the ability to improve and

   481     advance characters within their own terms. More importantly, if a game

   482     design provides character advancement options, these will influence the

   483     way in which players approach the game.

   484 

   485      Rewards

   486 

   487     I have written elsewhere of rewards systems, and the necessity that they

   488     be two-pronged. I first considered the issue on the forums at The Forge,

   489     and later contributed a brief statement on it to RoleplayingTips.com.

   490     The clearest and most complete statement on the subject is in the

   491     aptly-named [14]Game Ideas Unlimited: Rewards; but as that is for Gaming

   492     Outpost subscribers only I'll recap some of it here.

   493 

   494     There are two aspects to rewards systems, both equally important. Many

   495     designers fail to realize this, and so design rewards systems that are

   496     internally conflicted--they encourage opposing play priorities.

   497 

   498     There is a clear example of this found in examining the popular

   499     experience points systems of games in which you kill monsters and get

   500     treasure, which gives you points, which raises your character level or

   501     skills, which makes you better able to kill monsters and get treasure.

   502     This is a coherent gamist rewards system: everything in it is geared to

   503     encourage the process of killing monsters and getting treasure, that is,

   504     overcoming the challenges of the game. It is a system that does not need

   505     repair, because it works extremely well at doing what it is supposed to

   506     do.

   507 

   508     However, there are many referees who don't like what it does. They think

   509     it encourages players to focus on killing monsters and getting treasure

   510     (which is correct, because that's exactly what it's supposed to do).

   511     They don't want that to be the focus of the game; they want to encourage

   512     role playing, or character development, or dialogue, or helping people,

   513     or any of uncounted other roleplay preferences. So they strip away at

   514     least some of the points gained for killing monsters and getting

   515     treasure, and instead give them for performing the desired conduct,

   516     whatever it is. Now a player character gains experience points by

   517     helping the poor, or pursuing his private hobbies; these points increase

   518     his level--which makes him better at killing monsters and getting

   519     treasure. The rewards are now given for one sort of play, but they still

   520     facilitate the other.

   521 

   522     It's not necessary to have a rewards system in a game. Stripped of such

   523     artificial rewards, many players will discover that play is its own

   524     reward. After all, players play because they enjoy the game. They enjoy

   525     different aspects of the game, but whatever it is that they enjoy is

   526     inherent in the play itself. Rewards systems, in the main, are icing on

   527     the cake. Done right, they encourage the desired form of play. Done

   528     wrong, they can clash horribly with the entire game.

   529 

   530     Thus when you design a rewards system, you need to look at both sides of

   531     it. What does this reward, that is, what does a player have to do to

   532     receive the reward? Winning, exploring the theme, and discovering the

   533     world are all goals and in a sense rewarding conduct; if you wish to

   534     encourage one of those, that is what you reward. You must then also ask

   535     what the reward facilitates. Does it make the character more powerful,

   536     give the player greater ability to address the theme, open up new areas

   537     of exploration?

   538 

   539     Rewards systems, when they exist, are usually tied into character

   540     improvement. Thus if you've solved the one you've often solved at least

   541     part of the other. It need not be that way; you can provide rewards that

   542     advance player goals in one fashion and advancement that does so in

   543     another. For example, you could have a gamist game in which character

   544     advancement was built on improving skills by use, such that each time

   545     the player brought a particular skill into play in a significant way he

   546     received credit toward improving that skill. Independent of that, you

   547     could reward gamist play with success points, a small pool of points or

   548     dice on which the player could draw when he wished to improve his odds

   549     against a more daunting challenge or in a moment when success was more

   550     important. Rewards do not have to be tied to character improvement, even

   551     if character improvement is well designed for the goals of the game.

   552     Games with no character improvement at all may still have effective and

   553     functional rewards systems which facilitate the desired mode of play.

   554 

   555      Conclusion

   556 

   557     With sufficient consideration to what a game is trying to achieve, GNS

   558     theory can be very instructive in how best to achieve it. It does not

   559     dictate solutions to all of the questions that a designer must ask, but

   560     it does inform him of questions he needs to address which he might

   561     otherwise miss.

   562 

   563     In examining character generation, resolution mechanics, credibility

   564     distribution, advancement, and rewards, it was shown that there were

   565     some ways in which GNS theory could point us to the best solutions for

   566     the type of game we sought to build. It is clear that at times designers

   567     are asking the wrong questions in these areas, because some of the

   568     things which we expect would matter are not relevant, but others that we

   569     often overlook are significant.

   570 

   571     Although these five areas of game design are a significant portion of

   572     most games, they are not a complete consideration of all the areas which

   573     matter in all games. It is hoped that the consideration of these areas

   574     will not merely help the designer see that GNS can provide guidance on

   575     these game design issues, but also enable him to find the right

   576     questions and answers in areas not covered here.

   577 

   578     I look forward to seeing the application of the theory to more games in

   579     the future.

   580 

   581     M. Joseph Young is co-creator of the [15]Multiverser role playing game

   582     and author or co-author of its various supplements. His Internet

   583     writings are [16]indexed for convenience. He is available to discuss

   584     these ideas through the Forge forums and by e-mail.

   585 

   586     The author wishes to thank Ron Edwards, Mike Holmes, Clinton Nixon, Ryan

   587     Young, Fang Langford, and Ralph Mazza for their editorial suggestions on

   588     the draft of this article. To recognize all those whose contributions

   589     were made through discussions on the forums of this site and others

   590     would require a separate article; please accept my thanks.

   591 

   592     Similarly, there have been uncounted forum posts here and elsewhere that

   593     have contributed to the author's understanding of these issues. It has

   594     been wisely suggested that at least some of these be linked; alas, there

   595     are again more than can be acknowledged. Two stand out, however, as

   596     expanding on specific areas covered in the article, and in both of them

   597     the author here has made comments there which he hopes are of value. The

   598     concept of credibility appears to have been introduced by Vincent in

   599     [17]Vincent's Standard Rant: Power, Credibility, and Assent; this

   600     author's comments on the top of the [18]second page and near the bottom

   601     of the [19]third page may be helpful in elucidating the use of

   602     Credibility in this context, and there is much on the thread that is

   603     useful. It appears that the earliest suggestion of the two pronged

   604     nature of reward systems was in this author's post, the second, in

   605     [20]GNS and Player Rewards. The post illustrates by examples that games

   606     do not need reward mechanics for players to be rewarded, as play can and

   607     is often its own reward.

   608     The Forge created and administrated by [21]Clinton R. Nixon and [22]Ron

   609     Edwards.

   610     All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their

   611     designated author.

   612 

   613 References

   614 

   615    Visible links

   616    1. file:///

   617    2. file:///about/

   618    3. file:///donate.php

   619    4. file:///articles/

   620    5. file:///reviews/

   621    6. file:///resources/

   622    7. file:///

   623    8. mailto:BestRPGis@multiverser.com

   624    9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/

   625   10. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/

   626   11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/

   627   12. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71050&publisherid=54849

   628   13. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71772&publisherid=54849

   629   14. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71532&publisherid=54849

   630   15. http://www.multiverser.com/

   631   16. http://www.mjyoung.net/writings.htm

   632   17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701

   633   18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

   634   19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

   635   20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4075

   636   21. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com

   637   22. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com