"Game Styles II" Topic

In another facet of this I am fascinated by the possibilities of involvement games. By involvement I mean games where the gamer must actually become part of the game in the sense of bringing to the game abilities and knowledge of his own. That is he must DO something in the decision of the game dependent on his own skills, knowledge and ability beyond merely rolling a die which makes him the force to generate a random number, but in no way having an effect on that number. I realize that this means for the sake of argument that "the number" is no longer random but contingent on the player.

for example, in one game I am designing the game proceeds to a point where a decision is made, that is a divergence of results is desired and success or failure is dependent on the right one. Rather than simply rolling a die, the player is required to do some action, in most cases answering a question, which if he answers correctly the result will be favorable, and if not unfavorable, if only to the extent that he does not attain the favorable result. The questions are all reflective of the subject of the game, or the underlying story of the game, and beyond a mere answer often contains clues and hints as to what might come next or be optimal strategies, such that the knowledge of the question might provide a context in which further challenges are more predictable or knowable.

An example.

The game in question is based on the hugely terrible "B" Sci-Fi movies of the 50's and 60's and involves aliens, abductions, battling with monsters and the like. In the course of the game players may when they come to a decision be asked a question such as "Who Plays Princess Altaira in Forbidden Planet?" Or shown a "still shot" from a movie and asked to identify it or the movie. It's not merely a trivia test as the umpire is allowed to make leeway in acceptance or rejection of any specific answer and the players in other questions can use their imaginations and even make up answers at times, that is injecting open ended imagination into the play. The crafting and selecting of questions can also be used to design possible hints If for example the question is about Princess Altaira, can we assume that in this course of the game there is a Robbie the Robot or even a Krell machine somewhere in the script? On the other hand, if someone is shown an Alien and misnames the movie, but the answer is still plausible within the genre or spirit of the movie, conditional acceptance might be allowed and indeed, the plot of a whole new movie inadvertently fleshed out. For example, if shown a picture of Marriet Hartley with two belly buttons from Genesis II or something like that and the player says "Oh, she's one of the Morlocks from "The Time Machine", the answer is wrong. But both right and wrong answer spring from the trope of a long past the holocaust world. So while the player has gotten the answer wrong, he has gotten the trope right.

The idea is the game is one where the player must engage himself directly in the game with his native abilities rather than being simply a flipper of dice.

Every game I run requires the players to make decisions and answer questions. Typically, these decisions require good tactical sense and, possibly knowledge of the historical period being played. All of the "questions" asked definitely revolve around the situation in the table. I would never predicate a player's success or failure on his (or her) ability to answer a trivia question.

Yes but I design all my games for players who want to have fun and enjoy themselves with the fellowship of others than the suffering through a sententious ordeal of gamesmanship.

Yes but I design all my games for players who want to have fun and enjoy themselves with the fellowship of others than the suffering through a sententious ordeal of gamesmanship.

Tactics and strategy are not the same thing as gamesmanship. The QILS game that I publish has practically no gamesmanship in it. I quite enjoy when players are talking about the scenario, tactics, and strategy around the table rather than the rules.

Some people actually enjoy making decisions based on things other than exposure to material and recall. Despite the leeway you offering in answering, asking and answering of only require remembering (as opposed to understanding, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating).

My kids have a friend who has never seen a B scifi movie. Her parents didn't like them and thought them a waste of time. As an adult now, she has no taste for them. She would be screwed over by your game despite the fact that she is one hell of a think-forward tactician.

And why is this posted to VSF? It's more musings on game design, with an example that's way out of period, so what about this question even puts it into VSF?

"Yes but I design all my games for players who want to have fun and enjoy themselves with the fellowship of others than the suffering through a sententious ordeal of gamesmanship."

First I don't think you used "sententious" correctly

Definition of sententious
1
a : given to or abounding in aphoristic expression
b : given to or abounding in excessive moralizing
2
: terse, aphoristic, or moralistic in expression :

Simple Definition of aphorism
: a short phrase that expresses a true or wise idea

I don't see tactical discussions as being moralistic, and I think most of us we would not consider a discussion filled with wise and true ideas an "Ordeal"

Secondly you feel that its better to play a game basically based on trivial pursuit or a form of Jeopardy.

I'm also trying to understand how you can separate "tactics" from "game", or even "tactics" from real life. Even Trivial Pursuit has tactics. Even the most hard core role playing has tactical discussions, perhaps not of the rules but of the situation within the game.

If you want to swing this a slightly different direction, there's a neat mechanic in the RPG called Tenra Bansho Zero (yes, Japanese game, but there is an English translation available). The way it works is that the other players have chits to give to each other for cool descriptions of actions and in-character quotes, and the player receiving these chits can use them to boost dice rolls later. Only one award of a single chit per cool thing, though.

The GM also has a supply of these chits, and has some extra things he can do with them, like pull another player into a scene with one, but the basic idea is for the players to award other players for saying cool stuff.

I played (and also once ran) a game where the entire game revolved around a player's ability to come up with an action and support it with up to three reasons why it would happen. The umpire judged the logic very strong, strong, weak etc and the end result was a d6 roll for success.

It was called a Matrix Game by Hamster Press. Chris Engle is the designer. The good news was that you could get away with things an ordinary rule set would not allow you to do. Historical logic was always compelling! It really built a story narrative out of a game.

The flip side was that not every gamer is creative, and so, the overall logic often degraded as the game wore on.

Lion in the stars.

I've seen this done and played in a game where it was used. It's a good idea but it's dependent on the players and many gamers took the position of "I'm not giving anyone anything because it could be used against me." Others simply couldn't remember this dimension of the game and considered it a nuisance. It's a good idea and can infuse the game with an alternate and simultaneous dynamic which makes it fun and memorable. However you have to get the right players, and that is hard.

Russ Lockwood

I've done some similar things in my games where the player is allowed to use initiative on his own to do innovative and creative things. Sometimes he played off the GM (me) and sometimes as GM I would allow the other players in the game to "vote" yea or nay and take the majority opinion. It works, but again you have to have the right players and the players have to have some facility at public speaking and rhetoric. Most do not.

You do hit upon a cardinal point. All games, even straight table top games are merely ones of competing narratives. One side posits one path of a future narrative, the other does the other, to decide between them you roll a die. That form of "decision making" is no more valid than a coopration of narrative (like "Prime Time Adventures") or answering a trivia question (which in the game described is not trivial at all and requires an immersion far more immediate and all encompassing than believing one is Sgt. Rock destroying a Tiger tank with a nail clipper).

But the problem is as you have said. Few gamers have the mental agility to participate in such a game.

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Wolfhag

African or European?

Well --- I'm not sure

AAAAAAAeeeeeeeeeeee! Splat

Wolfhag

One side posits one path of a future narrative, the other does the other, to decide between them you roll a die.

This is a false analogy.

Players may or may not posit a path of a future narrative, but either way, their decisions do not reflect that narrative. Their decisions reflect attempts to change the environment.

While that environment evolves over time, their proposed narratives do not have to change(they are not tightly bound). If my future narrative involves breaking the center of an opposing formation, my actions in the game (determined by my decisions) is not "break the center". The decisions and actions focus on placement and utilization of forces in ways that I believe will achieve that objective. I may conduct actions on the flank with the intent of affecting the center. If when we roll the dice, I end up with results unfavorable to the actions I set for my forces, I do not have to change my proposed narrative of "breaking the center". I may or may not even need to change my decisions – maybe just hanging in there will work.

This leads to another problem with the construct. My proposed narrative doesn't have to be opposed to, or even parallel to my opponents' narratives. They can either both or neither come to fruition, so the dice rolls are not deciding among them as an either-or. While I am trying to break the center, my opponent may be trying to keep me in a specific area of the battlefield so that his impending reinforcements can wipe me up a bit later. Either, both, or neither of these can happen.

And the proposed narratives do not have to be of equal scope and form, so they are not necessarily possible as alternatives. A simple example is that my narrative may be looking forward two turns or so and my opponent's may be looking forward ten or more. Again, it doesn't make sense to say that a die roll is deciding between them.

That form of "decision making" is no more valid than a coopration of narrative (like "Prime Time Adventures") or answering a trivia question

Nobody said either was a more or less valid way of determining outcomes. Validity requires the establishment of a subjective framework, so it is not a universal. All that was said was that the framework of the Q&A approach relies on memorization, where for other approaches the framework relies on tactical and strategic thinking.

(which in the game described is not trivial at all and requires an immersion far more immediate and all encompassing than believing one is Sgt. Rock destroying a Tiger tank with a nail clipper).

Recall does not require immersion. It requires exposure and repetition. You can recall salient parts of Romeo and Juliette for a test and have absolutely no involvement, attachment, interest, or broader understanding of them. If you took such a test decades ago and have had no involvement or interest in it since, you might still be able to answer a few questions about it.

Immersion in after-the-fact collection and presentation of past events (history) may help recall on a subject (or it may not). Broad recall of multiple aspects of a history does not necessarily reflect the real world mindset of the commanders at the time. I would wager many Wehrmacht commanders who had Tiger I/II under their command would not have been able to answer trivia questions about them.

The probability of correct recall by people who have knowingly prepared for a trivia contest does not necessarily (and very unlikely does) reflect the probability of a combat outcome of the event for which it serves to resolve. The supply company armed with nail clippers will do fine against the tank battalion as long as their players have memorized many more of the right things than their opponents have.

Few gamers have the mental agility to participate in such a game.

The above quote is in reference to a matrix game.

I've seen hundreds of gamers handle such games quite well.

There's no analogy in it at all. All games are narratives in a large or small sense.

Side A: "I want my forces to reach the stone wall first and pour a murderous volley into the advancing side B."

Side B: "I want my forces to reach the stone wall first and pour a murderous volley into the advancing side A."

Desired future histories in the very small scale. Who dies is resolved by some abstract means, die roll, coin flip, trivia test, the same thing.

There is no more strategic and tactical thinking than the above.

Perhaps if you'd bothered to read the post you were replying to, you would have seen the examples of why it is a false analogy. Then again, if you don't actually have a valid comment or counterargument to those examples, I suppose you can just say the same thing again as if that is a justification.

All games are narratives in a large or small sense.

This is different than what you said before. The history of a game is, in fact a narrative. That doesn't require a side or a player to posit one.