Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary

From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 20:30:42 +0000

Rob McNeur <rob@ccc.govt.nz> writes:
> Type 2: Roleplaying :- The objective of the game is to have fun, to
> learn and explore the surroundings and to interact with others doing
> similar things. There is no "Winner" and no "Looser".  This includes
> very few games other than the obvious roleplaying ones such as xD&D,
> Amber, Gurps etc. Also includes Olympia, and probably Monster Island
> although I haven't played it so aren't sure.

I think it's important to note that not everyone uses these terms in the
same way that you do.  I always get it wrong when I attempt to under-
stand what Greg Lindahl thinks, but he has clearly said several times
that he doesn't roleplay, yet he appears to enjoy open-ended games like
Olympia.

Note that there are other open-ended games which don't involve any
individual characters at all, but (for example) exploration of a galaxy,
where the smallest individual units are spaceships or even fleets of
spaceships.  Is "role playing" still possible in such a context?  I
would say yes, because one can still adopt a racial character, and act
according to that character rather than trying to maximize the chance of
a strategic victory.  But others might disagree.

Perhaps any term is misleading, because it carries certain expectations
based on the way that it is used in other contexts, but in my opinion
the best way to phrase the distinction is between "strategy" games and
"adventure" games.  (And, correspondingly, between "strategy" gamers and
"adventure" gamers.)  In this terminology, strategy games are those in
which the primary goal is to form a strategy which will defeat other
players, or the game system (after all, games can be solitaire).
Strategy gamers, of course, are those who play with this as their
primary objective.  Adventure games are those in which the primary goal
is to explore and learn, and adventure gamers are those who play this
way.  (Adventure gamers may be, but are not necessarily, role players.)

> In Roleplaying games, the needs are different. As the players do not have
> the need to obliterate each other (many still do, but I think that they are
> missing the point of the games), they do not need to optimize everything,
> hence do not need full information. Here, the prime requirement is to learn,
> to enjoy and to develop, not to "WIN !"
> Hence, the roleplayer style of games does not need full formulae, although
> they still need many stats and general rules. The rest they can learn as
> they go.

Here's where I think it is important to make the distinction.  You have
lumped a large class of games and gamers under the heading of "role-
playing."  I think that you are right that roleplayers generally don't
find it important to have formulas.  After all, if you are going to base
your actions on the role you are playing, rather than on strategic
considerations, then finding "optimal" (or more probably, "more
effective") strategies is not so important.

However, there is a class of gamers---which includes me, and several
others I know---who are interested in playing adventure style games, but
who enjoy trying to find good strategies for achieving the adventure
goals.  I can take just as much enjoyment in trying to find the best
strategy to acquire the Staff of Calyx before someone else does, as I
can in trying to find the best strategy to obliterate some other player.
But the point in either case is that what I enjoy doing is finding good
strategies.  And that process is simply more enjoyable, for me, when
conducted with the knowledge of the formulas which comprise the game
system.

> For any specific game, I think that the game authors must decide in advance
> which of these categories the game is intended to come into, and then
> publish full information or not dependant on the style of play intended or
> expected.
> For Wargames, publish everything, rules, stats, formulae.
> For Roleplaying games, publish rules and stats, but NO formulae.

> Rules and stats equate to background knowledge that the player has about
> specifics, formulae are those world based things that relate to experience,
> and hence must be learned by experience.

You still have to explain what you are going to do about the fact that
the formulas will eventually become known.  Unlike the real world,
computer programs _do_ work by formulas, which can be discovered in the
course of play.  It's true that you can make the formula so complicated,
or depend on so many diverse factors, that I may never discover it
exactly.  However, I will be able to discover an approximate version, in
which some of the effects may be replaced by "unknown" or "random"
quantities.  That will still be enough to give me a tremendous advantage
over other players, who don't have even that approximate understanding.
(Further, if you make the formula increasingly complicated, it is
increasingly likely that I will be able to discover "bugs" in the
formula---ways in which its behavior is counterintuitive, and which I
can use to my advantage.  I don't want the formula to have those, but if
they do exist I generally do feel it necessary to use them.)

It really seems to me that, if your goal is to provide a game system
which can satisfy players who enjoy exploring and discovering but don't
want to be obliterated, then the easiest and most effective way to
accomplish this is not by attempting to obscure formulas and mechanisms
(which in the long run just gives the analysts an even bigger
advantage), but by designing a game system in which players _don't get_
obliterated.  Make it possible for players to be noncombatants, which
can't be attacked.  Or provide large non-player forces which protect
nonaggressive players from aggressive ones.  Or provide disincentives in
the game system for large players to attack small ones.

IMO, the players who aren't satisfied with Atlantis for this reason are
dissatisfied precisely because of the lack of any of these factors,
certainly _much_ more so than because the formulas are public.  Every
player, regardless of whether that player is trader or tradesman or
warmonger, is subject to the same combat system.  There is no particular
way for the weaker players to avoid combat.  And attacking them is
frequently profitable even for rather powerful players.  All mistakes,
if you are designing with Rob's players in mind.

David desJardins

References

PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000

Referenced By

PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000