diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/applied_theory.txt --- /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