--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/draft/applied_theory.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,637 @@
+ The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games
+ [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |
+ Forge [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums
+
+
+ Applied Theory
+ by [8]M.J. Young
+
+ Introduction
+
+ There are among gamers those who like to theorize, to attempt to
+ understand and explain our hobby, why we do what we do, and why it works
+ when it does. For some gamers, this makes no sense. We play to have fun;
+ we design games in whatever way seems to be the most fun. Some despise
+ theory, and see no use in it. If you have no use for theory, then this
+ material's only offering is that perhaps someone else might. I am among
+ those for whom theories are fundamental, so I would be interested in
+ theories if they had no practical value to anyone. However, since I
+ think that theory is the foundation for action, I can't imagine any
+ theory that would have no practical application. I am thus exploring the
+ practical application of role playing game theory.
+
+ Specifically, I'm looking at the theory commonly known as GNS. This
+ theory suggests that role play styles divide into Gamists who enjoy
+ facing the challenges of play, Narrativists who enjoy great stories that
+ involve themes or issues, and Simulationists who seek to know what
+ another reality might be like. The theory, which owes much to many
+ people over many years including the discussions on the
+ rec.games.frp.advocacy newsgroup, first took this form with these names
+ when formulated by Ron Edwards in his article [9]System Does Matter,
+ originally published on [10]Gaming Outpost, but since lost and
+ republished at The Forge. Mr. Edwards has expanded on this theory with
+ [11]several other articles, and debates and discussions of the details
+ have been held on the forums of several gamer web sites. Periodically in
+ those discussions, someone suggests that the theory isn't much use,
+ because it doesn't tell you how to design a better game.
+
+ In response to this, it can be and often is answered that this is not
+ really a theory about how to design games. It's a theory about what
+ gamers are seeking when they play, and as such has its most effective
+ application as a diagnostic tool for play groups that seem to be
+ internally at odds. In this context, if we have players who are trying
+ to get different things out of the game, having some terminology and
+ definitions by which to discuss what each is seeking can be invaluable
+ in resolving conflict. If all GNS theory did was resolve such conflicts,
+ it would be valuable. However, one cannot read so much as the title of
+ that first article, System Does Matter, without absorbing the idea that
+ game design itself is part of the problem, and therefore could be part
+ of the solution. Those who are asking how to do narrativist, or gamist,
+ or simulationist design are asking valid questions; the answers
+ generally given to these budding designers have been inadequate, as they
+ in essence amount to telling people to design whatever they like and
+ then test it through play to see how it works.
+
+ Answers need not be quite so nebulous in this area. Once the theory is
+ understood, there are aspects to it which suggest practical approaches
+ to designing consistent games that support particular sorts of play.
+ This isn't about rules heavy versus rules light design, or about setting
+ detail, or even about things like whether you play your character in the
+ first person or the third person or have control over things beyond the
+ character. It's about how to create games which support and facilitate
+ one approach to play under the theory. Once you have the basic concept
+ of a game idea, application of the theory can greatly aid many of the
+ design details.
+
+ Game design has many areas; no one area will completely control how the
+ game is played, nor is it necessary for design priorities to be
+ considered in relation to all of these areas to be effective. The social
+ context of the gaming group playing the game can have a significant
+ impact on whether the game works at all, and whether it is played as
+ designed. Once it is agreed that a particular group of players is
+ interested in playing a particular kind of game, designing to that
+ desire need not be so mysterious as some imply. Character generation,
+ resolution mechanics, credibility distribution, advancement, and rewards
+ are some of the aspects of design through which particular GNS
+ preferences can be facilitated, and designers can devise approaches to
+ each of these through such considerations long before test play begins.
+
+ Underpinning this article, which will be somewhere on the edge between
+ theory and practice, is this basic principle: conduct will be preferred
+ if it is rewarded, and avoided if it is penalized.
+
+ There's a lot to cover, so coverage will of necessity be sketchy;
+ however, it is hoped that this will provide some foundation for
+ practical applications of the theory to game design.
+
+ Character Generation
+
+ Nearly all role playing games include a section on how to create a
+ character. Very few give more than a line or two to considering what you
+ are creating when you do so. Failure to consider this aspect leads to
+ design problems; in GNS terms, an understanding of what you are creating
+ is far more important than how you are creating it. Put another way, if
+ you know what you're creating, how to do that will more often than not
+ fall into place. Too many games create characters without thought to
+ what they are. Characters are not really people; they are functional
+ components of a game world which are manipulated by players to achieve
+ goals. They are, in a word, tools. It is at this point in play that you
+ are attempting to guide the players into designing the right tools.
+
+ Put that way, it becomes obvious that GNS considerations are very
+ important to the question of what you are designing. If you guide the
+ players into designing hammers, they're going to wind up with tools that
+ are very good for hitting things; if you want them instead to write
+ stories, you need to have them design pens. You need the right tool for
+ the job; if you don't have it, there will be a tendency to try to make
+ the job fit the tool.
+
+ So what kinds of tools are needed for the major types of jobs?
+
+ Gamist tools are easy to recognize and easy to design. A gamist
+ character has to be up to the challenges which lie ahead. What that
+ means in detail depends on the nature of the game in play and the
+ preferences of the designer. Some gamist characters can be extremely
+ focused on the central challenges of the game. Combat is the most common
+ example of this, and a character's effectiveness in a certain type of
+ gamist design would be measured by his abilities to deal damage and
+ survive damage, to stand up to the fight. In a very different sort of
+ game, racing could be the challenge, and character design would be
+ narrowly about how fast the character is without reference to much else.
+ However, skill-driven games can also have a strong gamist design
+ foundation, if the skills are geared to meet potential in-game
+ challenges. Driving or piloting skill, medical skill, hacking, picking
+ locks, and hiding are all candidates for gamist design, because they are
+ there to provide the player with options, ways to beat challenges
+ presented in play.
+
+ That's not to say that narrativist characters can't have either power or
+ skills; they can. However, narrativist characters need to be connected
+ to the world. They need to be built such that things matter to them, and
+ they matter to things.
+
+ Just as there are multiple ways to design a character effective against
+ the challenges ahead, so too there are multiple ways to integrate a
+ character into the world. Creating relationships with other characters
+ is a valuable factor; giving the character beliefs or principles which
+ will be challenged by events is also useful. Character history and
+ character goals might matter, provided these are of a sort from which
+ issues arise. A long-standing feud might be merely fodder for another
+ fight; done right, it might become an issue for exploration. To build a
+ narrativist tool, you should have something that is already tied in to
+ the ideas you hope to explore.
+
+ Simulationist tools are perhaps the most difficult to see or to design.
+ There is a sense in which no words which describe a simulationist
+ character don't apply equally well to another sort. He must be
+ effective, able to change his world; but then, gamist characters must be
+ effective in that sense. He must be human, seeming like a real person;
+ this is true of narrativist characters, certainly. Perhaps the most
+ important characteristic of a simulationist character is that he must be
+ accurate, that is, he must clearly express something real and credible
+ within the setting such that he has exactly the amount of impact on
+ events and persons around him that he should have, no more and no less.
+
+ This does not mean and should not be confused to mean that a
+ simulationist character is more detailed than any other. A simulationist
+ character could have history, principles, character, goals,
+ relationships, skills, and all the things that support other forms of
+ play; he could as easily be three numbers on a statistics sheet defining
+ his effectiveness. What matters is that he is given form as an
+ integrated part of the world, where he fits as if he were born and
+ raised within it. To understand him is to understand the essentials of
+ the world in which he lives, and vice versa. He is what he is, and in
+ some sense not what anyone outside his world wants him to be. He is in
+ the world and of the world, and as a tool he reveals the world to us
+ through himself.
+
+ Now that we've got some idea of what kind of tool, what sort of
+ character, we're trying to create, how do we create him? Do we use point
+ systems for gamist characters, lifepaths for narrativists, and dice for
+ simulationists? Wrong on all counts. Those methodological considerations
+ in themselves have nothing to do with what we are creating. You can
+ create any sort of character with any of them.
+
+ Take lifepaths for an example. We could start a character in his teens
+ and move him, by a combination of die rolls and choices, through
+ military training, education, private sector work, and other areas
+ through which he builds up skills that prepare him for the challenges
+ which will come. We might instead start a character younger, take him
+ through his early years, develop school friends, relationships, family
+ connections, life partners, coupled with the sort of moments that form
+ opinions and beliefs, and so derive someone ready to explore the themes
+ of the game. We could have a much broader selection of options, creating
+ characters who have far less focus and more breadth of background and
+ experience, who thus feel more real, as the tools we will use to explore
+ the world. The idea of using lifepaths didn't matter; it was the way we
+ used them that made the difference. It isn't how you build the
+ character, but what kind of character you build. You'll certainly have
+ to adjust the character generation system to build the right sort of
+ character, and you might find that you have more luck making one
+ mechanic type work than another for what you wish to do, but the answer
+ isn't so much in the type of mechanic as in the targeted result.
+
+ I make some suggestions on character generation systems in [12]Game
+ Ideas Unlimited: CharGen (which gives some general thoughts and focuses
+ on freeform design) and [13]Game Ideas Unlimited: Negative Points (ways
+ to smooth out some of the problems in dice and points systems).
+
+ Resolution Mechanics
+
+ Mr. Edwards has said that system within a game is the equivalent of
+ time. To understand this, you have to understand something about time:
+ it is the medium for change. Without time, nothing changes. In the game,
+ the system determines what happens, what changes; without it, nothing
+ changes. Thus the system determines and controls change, and therefore
+ is effectively time for the imagined world.
+
+ Yet this, too, can be very important in supporting or impeding GNS
+ preferences. How outcomes are resolved matters very much.
+
+ Although it has been said many times, it is worth saying again that
+ diceless systems don't in themselves support narrativist play. They may
+ be used for narrativist play, but they may equally be used for gamist or
+ simulationist play. So, too, such general matters as dice pools, bell
+ curves, granularity, and the other aspects of system which garner so
+ much discussion (particularly from system monkeys) are not in themselves
+ relevant to GNS concerns. As with character generation, it is what you
+ do that matters, and not these questions of how you do it.
+
+ What are you attempting to do? The function of system is to provide the
+ medium for change; more specifically, resolution mechanics are there to
+ empower players to make the kinds of changes they wish to make within
+ the game world and to interact with the consequences. To the gamist,
+ resolution mechanics are in a sense both the obstacles to overcome and
+ the means by which to overcome them. To the narrativist, they are the
+ means by which the theme impacts the character and the character
+ addresses the theme. In simulationist play, these are both the
+ limitations on change and the power to explore it.
+
+ For gamist mechanics, you want something resolute; there usually needs
+ to be clear victory conditions, clear failure conditions. It also helps
+ if the system is responsive to player choice, that is, if there are ways
+ that the player, through his character, can impact the probability of
+ success. This could arise from strategy, or from skill or equipment
+ choice, or from any decision which should and does give the character an
+ advantage. Few things are more frustrating to gamist play than for the
+ character to do things that seem to the player to make sense as ways to
+ improve the odds, only to have these amount to no effect.
+
+ Even unrealistic strategies are helpful as gamist tools. A game that
+ gives combat bonuses for sound, conservative defensive strategy can be
+ very gamist, but so can one which gives combat bonuses for brash and
+ brazen boldness, charging, screaming, doing over-the-top stunts. What
+ matters is not how the bonuses are earned, but that in fact it is
+ possible to manipulate the chance of success through character choices.
+
+ Although combat is the example here, it should not be thought that it's
+ only in combat that such things matter. If a character can improve his
+ chance to pick a lock or hack a computer or repair a wound by taking
+ particular actions, this gives support to gamist play. There is a
+ challenge to meet. The resolution system will tell whether or not the
+ player succeeded, with certainty, but the player has the ability to
+ tweak his chance of success through his approach to the problem.
+
+ Although it may sound strange to say that a resolution mechanic need not
+ be resolute, for narrativist play it is often better that it not be. A
+ gamist wants to know whether he succeeded or failed; a narrativist wants
+ to know whether his efforts had an impact. In a combat mechanic for the
+ use of guns, it is quite sufficient for a gamist system to determine
+ whether the shot hit the opponent and how severe the injury is; for a
+ narrativist system, things are probably a lot fuzzier (from a certain
+ perspective). The shot should have the power to frighten the opponent
+ and cause him to flee, for example. From the gamist perspective, that
+ would be a miss; from a narrativist perspective, that's a success. Thus
+ it helps narrativism if the resolution mechanic provides more of a
+ degree of success rather than a strict success/failure determination.
+
+ Simulationism wants to know what would actually happen, given the
+ assumptions of the setting. That doesn't mean realistic, in the ordinary
+ sense; it means believable within the bounds of the imagined world. A
+ fighter putting his spear in the ground and then using it as a bracing
+ point as he runs across the chests of his adversaries kicking them is
+ not terribly realistic, but it does fit the imagined reality of a
+ certain sort of world, and thus could be incorporated into simulationist
+ play in that world. In fact, if it has been established that a
+ particular fighter can do that, simulationist play would dictate that he
+ do so in any situation in which that would be the obvious response,
+ unless there is reason to think he would do something else at that
+ moment.
+
+ Thus resolution mechanics which support simulationist play are those
+ which make outcomes correct within the setting. Much as with
+ narrativism, this is often served by some form of relative success and
+ relative failure, a determination of how well the character did; but
+ like gamism, this generally needs to be resolute. A simulationist
+ doesn't just want to know that he missed; he wants to know how close he
+ came to hitting.
+
+ It might help put the entire question of resolution mechanics in
+ perspective by imagining that a character runs, perhaps fleeing from an
+ attacker. The gamist wants to know whether he ran fast enough. The
+ narrativist wants to know how running mattered. The simulationist wants
+ to know how fast he ran. Although in a sense, all three are concerned
+ about escaping the adversary, they view this in different ways.
+
+ Credibility Distribution
+
+ Before anything can be said about credibility distribution, some
+ explanation of what this means is important.
+
+ In roleplaying theory, it is recognized that there is within the game a
+ shared imagined reality in which actions occur. Players, including the
+ referee, contribute to the content of this reality through statements
+ made to each other. These statements amount to, "This is what I want to
+ have happen in our shared imagined world."
+
+ Of course, player statements may be contradictory; after all, players
+ have different aims. Bob's character and Bill's character might get into
+ a fight, and Bob might say that his character hits Bill's in the nose,
+ to which Bill answers that his character ducks that punch and knocks
+ Bob's to the floor. Now we need to know what actually happens in our
+ shared imaginative space, or we're no longer imagining the same reality.
+ Game systems must apportion credibility to address these issues.
+ Credibility is the degree to which any person at the table has the power
+ to define what is happening in the shared space.
+
+ You might think that in traditional games, only the referee has
+ credibility. That is incorrect. All players have a measured amount of
+ credibility. The referee rarely is able to say what actions any player's
+ character would take--only whether he succeeded in that action. Thus
+ non-referee players have credibility, too, even in such games, as they
+ get to state what their characters attempt. Credibility means someone
+ gets to decide what rules apply to the situation, when resolution
+ mechanics are used, what the dice mean, and ultimately what happens in
+ the shared space; it also means stating what actions characters are
+ attempting, what they are saying to each other, and how they are
+ reacting. Credibility is always shared. The issue is how it is shared.
+
+ This is sometimes confused with something called narration rights, that
+ is, who gets to describe the scene. There is some connection between the
+ two, but it is not absolute. For example, a game could state that each
+ player at the table is allowed to contribute one fact which must be
+ included in the outcome of the event, and then the player who has the
+ narration rights must state what happened in such a manner that all of
+ these facts are included. He himself might not have determined anything
+ that happened despite narrating all of it. In most instances, narration
+ rights include credibility; yet even in games which pass narration
+ rights around, it may be the case that the referee can veto something
+ stated in the narration if it goes counter to something known to him but
+ not revealed to the players.
+
+ Gamist play is best supported in most cases by narrowly and clearly
+ delineated credibility. Because the point of play is to overcome the
+ challenge, it is not usually effective for the player facing the
+ challenge to decide that he was successful. Since it is also possible
+ that the players may find themselves in competition, it would be equally
+ problematic for that decision to be made by a potentially opposing
+ player. It is important to gamist play that credibility be clearly
+ distributed, and that the player who determines the outcome does not
+ himself have a stake in the outcome. This is why traditional games
+ placed this power with the referee. He was viewed as the neutral
+ arbiter, and as long as the players trusted his neutrality he could
+ determine what occurred in the game world without problem. It is not
+ impossible to eliminate the role of the referee from gamist play, but to
+ do so the design must clearly establish who has credibility under each
+ circumstance, so that disputes do not occur over success and failure.
+ Too much player credibility can actually thwart gamist play preferences,
+ since a player who can merely decide his character has been successful
+ has lost all sense that there was any challenge to the victory.
+
+ This does not mean that players cannot be given credibility beyond the
+ control of their character actions. The credibility to add color and
+ detail to a scene are not contrary to gamist concerns. What matters is
+ that such credibility cannot provide ways to eliminate the challenge
+ itself. As one of my sons observed, you can't give the gamist player the
+ power to invent a plus four sword lying on the table within reach and
+ expect the game to be functional at a gamist level. The challenge must
+ be maintained.
+
+ Narrativism usually requires more credibility in the hands of the
+ players. Players are not competing with each other nor trying to beat
+ the game, so giving them credibility is not detrimental to play in the
+ same way it tends to be for gamist play. Rather, players need to be
+ empowered to address the theme. Director stance, that is, the ability
+ for the character players to add elements to the setting and events on
+ the fly, is not uncommon in narrativist play. It is not essential to it,
+ but works better with it than it does with the other preferences.
+ Severely restricting credibility tends to stifle narrativist play, as it
+ takes from the players their ability to make the statements they wish to
+ make.
+
+ It is much more difficult to address credibility distribution in
+ simulationism. What matters here is the verisimilitude and consistency
+ of the shared imagined reality; that is, all players must see the same
+ thing and believe it. This does not preclude broadly shared credibility;
+ it does require a solid agreement on the nature of the reality. If we're
+ playing in a medieval fantasy world, exploring an abandoned castle, a
+ player given credibility could announce that he saw objects on a table,
+ and describe the objects he saw. As long as those objects do not upset
+ the agreed nature of the reality, such credibility is not problematic.
+ Thus it is evident that the objects could include bottles and lamps,
+ perhaps swords and daggers, possibly jewelry, all things which would
+ typically be found on such tables. Were the player to describe seeing
+ laser guns or kinetic blasters there, this would clearly violate the
+ agreed reality, and his credibility would cease at that moment. However,
+ there are difficult cases here. The player might describe finding the
+ famed lost jewel of Prince Balthazzar, or opening a bottle to release a
+ djinni, or discovering a scroll with a map to a hidden treasure. These,
+ too, are all plausible within the setting, but may be stretching the
+ credibility of the player. For this reason, it is more common for
+ simulationist games to prefer narrower credibility for the players and
+ broader credibility for the referee. It is not a necessary arrangement,
+ but it does tend to support simulationism better.
+
+ Again, credibility distribution does not determine the sort of play that
+ will occur in itself; it tends to support different preferences when
+ configured different ways, and thought should be given to the amount of
+ credibility players should have to facilitate reaching their goals.
+
+ Advancement
+
+ It must be asked whether it is necessary for characters to improve
+ during play; the answer is that this is never necessary. It is not
+ necessary for simulationist play, certainly not for narrativist play,
+ and surprisingly not for gamist play. However, it is often desirable in
+ each mode that characters have the power to improve and advance in some
+ sense. The more significant question is, in what sense can the character
+ advance?
+
+ Most of us are conditioned to think of character advancement or
+ improvement in strictly gamist terms: a character advances by getting
+ better at what he does. That is, his ability to face the challenges
+ increases. That there could be character advancement that has nothing
+ whatever to do with this is surprising to many players. Yet
+ consideration of this mode of improvement should give us some clues
+ regarding how to improve characters for simulationist and narrativist
+ play.
+
+ In discussing character generation, it was recognized that the character
+ was a tool which the player used to achieve goals. Improving a character
+ means making it into a better tool. Thus if a starting character in a
+ gamist game is a rubber mallet, improvement might take it through stages
+ of being a tack hammer, claw hammer, ball peen hammer, sledge hammer,
+ jack hammer, and ultimately pile driver. That is, the character gets
+ more effective at meeting the challenge, because it is a tool designed
+ to meet challenges.
+
+ If we consider the function of the narrativist character, we find that
+ it exists to enable the player to address the theme, and as such it has
+ to be tied in to the issues of play. Improving the character means
+ connecting it more deeply or in new ways with the theme. It can mean
+ deeper commitments, stronger relationships, more determined moral
+ positions; it could also mean greater conflicts, increased doubts, more
+ personal connections. In a game exploring issues of sexual identity, a
+ character who has always decried homosexuality as a moral perversion
+ could be advanced by the discovery that his best friend is homosexual,
+ creating a tension between his friendship and his beliefs. It's not
+ impossible for narrativist characters to get better at things they do,
+ but it is far more supportive of narrativist play for them to advance by
+ becoming more integrated into the issues. The tool that started as a pen
+ has advanced to becoming a word processor: it is now able to address the
+ issues at new levels and in more facets.
+
+ Since simulationist play is about exploring the imagined reality,
+ character advancement is best if it enhances that ability to explore.
+ Our magnifying glass gradually advances to an electron microscope; our
+ field glasses to become the Hubble telescope. The particulars of how
+ this works are greatly dependent on what the game is exploring. If the
+ exploration is of a physical world, greater mobility within that world
+ is the logical route to improvement. Given exploration of a complex
+ society, increased contacts and exposure within the society provide the
+ answer. Exploration of historic or fictional events requires greater
+ access to the events. Combat effectiveness or skill improvement can be
+ simulationist if these empower the player to explore more difficult or
+ dangerous areas of the game world. The variety of possibilities makes it
+ difficult to be specific, but the answer in any situation is found the
+ same way: identify what the tool facilitates, and how to make it
+ facilitate this more effectively. One thing that is consistent across
+ simulationist play in this area is that character advancement, like
+ everything else, must mesh with the in-game reality. A character
+ exploring the setting by working as a local reporter can advance through
+ being assigned to a larger beat, but only if it makes sense in the
+ context of the world that this character would receive that assignment.
+
+ Again, it is not necessary in any style of play for characters to
+ improve or advance. Gamist play can be about beating increasingly
+ difficult opponents with the same resources with which you started.
+ Narrativist play can interact with the world through a static character.
+ Simulationist play can be limited to that which the character can
+ access. All play styles can be enhanced by the ability to improve and
+ advance characters within their own terms. More importantly, if a game
+ design provides character advancement options, these will influence the
+ way in which players approach the game.
+
+ Rewards
+
+ I have written elsewhere of rewards systems, and the necessity that they
+ be two-pronged. I first considered the issue on the forums at The Forge,
+ and later contributed a brief statement on it to RoleplayingTips.com.
+ The clearest and most complete statement on the subject is in the
+ aptly-named [14]Game Ideas Unlimited: Rewards; but as that is for Gaming
+ Outpost subscribers only I'll recap some of it here.
+
+ There are two aspects to rewards systems, both equally important. Many
+ designers fail to realize this, and so design rewards systems that are
+ internally conflicted--they encourage opposing play priorities.
+
+ There is a clear example of this found in examining the popular
+ experience points systems of games in which you kill monsters and get
+ treasure, which gives you points, which raises your character level or
+ skills, which makes you better able to kill monsters and get treasure.
+ This is a coherent gamist rewards system: everything in it is geared to
+ encourage the process of killing monsters and getting treasure, that is,
+ overcoming the challenges of the game. It is a system that does not need
+ repair, because it works extremely well at doing what it is supposed to
+ do.
+
+ However, there are many referees who don't like what it does. They think
+ it encourages players to focus on killing monsters and getting treasure
+ (which is correct, because that's exactly what it's supposed to do).
+ They don't want that to be the focus of the game; they want to encourage
+ role playing, or character development, or dialogue, or helping people,
+ or any of uncounted other roleplay preferences. So they strip away at
+ least some of the points gained for killing monsters and getting
+ treasure, and instead give them for performing the desired conduct,
+ whatever it is. Now a player character gains experience points by
+ helping the poor, or pursuing his private hobbies; these points increase
+ his level--which makes him better at killing monsters and getting
+ treasure. The rewards are now given for one sort of play, but they still
+ facilitate the other.
+
+ It's not necessary to have a rewards system in a game. Stripped of such
+ artificial rewards, many players will discover that play is its own
+ reward. After all, players play because they enjoy the game. They enjoy
+ different aspects of the game, but whatever it is that they enjoy is
+ inherent in the play itself. Rewards systems, in the main, are icing on
+ the cake. Done right, they encourage the desired form of play. Done
+ wrong, they can clash horribly with the entire game.
+
+ Thus when you design a rewards system, you need to look at both sides of
+ it. What does this reward, that is, what does a player have to do to
+ receive the reward? Winning, exploring the theme, and discovering the
+ world are all goals and in a sense rewarding conduct; if you wish to
+ encourage one of those, that is what you reward. You must then also ask
+ what the reward facilitates. Does it make the character more powerful,
+ give the player greater ability to address the theme, open up new areas
+ of exploration?
+
+ Rewards systems, when they exist, are usually tied into character
+ improvement. Thus if you've solved the one you've often solved at least
+ part of the other. It need not be that way; you can provide rewards that
+ advance player goals in one fashion and advancement that does so in
+ another. For example, you could have a gamist game in which character
+ advancement was built on improving skills by use, such that each time
+ the player brought a particular skill into play in a significant way he
+ received credit toward improving that skill. Independent of that, you
+ could reward gamist play with success points, a small pool of points or
+ dice on which the player could draw when he wished to improve his odds
+ against a more daunting challenge or in a moment when success was more
+ important. Rewards do not have to be tied to character improvement, even
+ if character improvement is well designed for the goals of the game.
+ Games with no character improvement at all may still have effective and
+ functional rewards systems which facilitate the desired mode of play.
+
+ Conclusion
+
+ With sufficient consideration to what a game is trying to achieve, GNS
+ theory can be very instructive in how best to achieve it. It does not
+ dictate solutions to all of the questions that a designer must ask, but
+ it does inform him of questions he needs to address which he might
+ otherwise miss.
+
+ In examining character generation, resolution mechanics, credibility
+ distribution, advancement, and rewards, it was shown that there were
+ some ways in which GNS theory could point us to the best solutions for
+ the type of game we sought to build. It is clear that at times designers
+ are asking the wrong questions in these areas, because some of the
+ things which we expect would matter are not relevant, but others that we
+ often overlook are significant.
+
+ Although these five areas of game design are a significant portion of
+ most games, they are not a complete consideration of all the areas which
+ matter in all games. It is hoped that the consideration of these areas
+ will not merely help the designer see that GNS can provide guidance on
+ these game design issues, but also enable him to find the right
+ questions and answers in areas not covered here.
+
+ I look forward to seeing the application of the theory to more games in
+ the future.
+
+ M. Joseph Young is co-creator of the [15]Multiverser role playing game
+ and author or co-author of its various supplements. His Internet
+ writings are [16]indexed for convenience. He is available to discuss
+ these ideas through the Forge forums and by e-mail.
+
+ The author wishes to thank Ron Edwards, Mike Holmes, Clinton Nixon, Ryan
+ Young, Fang Langford, and Ralph Mazza for their editorial suggestions on
+ the draft of this article. To recognize all those whose contributions
+ were made through discussions on the forums of this site and others
+ would require a separate article; please accept my thanks.
+
+ Similarly, there have been uncounted forum posts here and elsewhere that
+ have contributed to the author's understanding of these issues. It has
+ been wisely suggested that at least some of these be linked; alas, there
+ are again more than can be acknowledged. Two stand out, however, as
+ expanding on specific areas covered in the article, and in both of them
+ the author here has made comments there which he hopes are of value. The
+ concept of credibility appears to have been introduced by Vincent in
+ [17]Vincent's Standard Rant: Power, Credibility, and Assent; this
+ author's comments on the top of the [18]second page and near the bottom
+ of the [19]third page may be helpful in elucidating the use of
+ Credibility in this context, and there is much on the thread that is
+ useful. It appears that the earliest suggestion of the two pronged
+ nature of reward systems was in this author's post, the second, in
+ [20]GNS and Player Rewards. The post illustrates by examples that games
+ do not need reward mechanics for players to be rewarded, as play can and
+ is often its own reward.
+ The Forge created and administrated by [21]Clinton R. Nixon and [22]Ron
+ Edwards.
+ All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their
+ designated author.
+
+References
+
+ Visible links
+ 1. file:///
+ 2. file:///about/
+ 3. file:///donate.php
+ 4. file:///articles/
+ 5. file:///reviews/
+ 6. file:///resources/
+ 7. file:///
+ 8. mailto:BestRPGis@multiverser.com
+ 9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/
+ 10. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/
+ 11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/
+ 12. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71050&publisherid=54849
+ 13. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71772&publisherid=54849
+ 14. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71532&publisherid=54849
+ 15. http://www.multiverser.com/
+ 16. http://www.mjyoung.net/writings.htm
+ 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701
+ 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
+ 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
+ 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4075
+ 21. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com
+ 22. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com