TTRPGs should punish people who play DMFs.

[echoVanguard]

When we're talking about designing a game, they're the same thing. Awarding everyone in the group but the perpetrator 500XP is no different from a game design perspective than penalizing the perpetrator 500XP.

The end result is the same. The effect is dramatically different for the reasons that you point out. This is the same reason why roll-under is generally disdained in favor of roll-over-with-modifier.

It's a common misconception that system and mechanics can exist independently of each other, but the truth is that the mechanics express the system and the system unifies the mechanics. If you have a goal for your system but the mechanics do not accomplish it, you have failed. That doesn't mean your mechanics are bad - merely that the system they create is not the one you set out to design.

I'm aware that due to loss aversion people bristle more at direct rather than indirect punishments so when we actually get to the phase of the game when non-designers test it you'll have to manipulate people into thinking that they're different things and that you're only "encouraging desired behavior".

But while we're operating behind the curtain in the dark corners of the Internet we don't need to deceitfully tailor our language to avoid such triggers of human cognitive bias. Otherwise TGD loses its ability to be the TGD.

What? You purport to be looking for a solution to a systemic proliferation of an undesirable behavior, but you assert that a discussion about solutions need not and in fact should not contain known facts about behavioral science and psychology? Pardon my inflammatory and unprofessional language, but that is pants-on-head retarded.

echo

[John Magnum]

What the fuck is the difference between an "end result" and an "effect"?

[echoVanguard]

What the fuck is the difference between an "end result" and an "effect"?

It is the difference between a chemical reaction that produces H2O + CO2 without an explosion, and a chemical reaction that produces H2O + CO2 with an explosion.

echo

[John Magnum]

So how is "an explosion" not an end result?

[echoVanguard]

A reaction is a transitional state. What question are you really trying to ask here?

echo

[Lago PARANOIA]

What? You purport to be looking for a solution to a systemic proliferation of an undesirable behavior, but you assert that a discussion about solutions need not and in fact should not contain known facts about behavioral science and psychology? Pardon my inflammatory and unprofessional language, but that is pants-on-head retarded.

I'm kind of amused now. Do you really think that game designers -- or hell, any kind of engineering or marketing team -- doesn't view their userbase in the most cynical terms possible during the design phase and then retroactively clean up their language and terms of art when it's time for the users to see it?

Like I said, I'm aware that when the finished product gets to shelves and whatever you'll have to put on a big shiny face and lie: "No no, we're not punishing the Daves; we're rewarding the Saras in hopes of encouraging the Daves." Mostly because of people like you. But make no mistake, this thread is about correcting the behavior of Dave with negative reinforcement, because positive reinforcement and stealth punishment ain't cutting the mustard.

[Username17]

I'm aware that due to loss aversion people bristle more at direct rather than indirect punishments so when we actually get to the phase of the game when non-designers test it you'll have to manipulate people into thinking that they're different things and that you're only "encouraging desired behavior".

But while we're operating behind the curtain in the dark corners of the Internet we don't need to deceitfully tailor our language to avoid such triggers of human cognitive bias. Otherwise TGD loses its ability to be the TGD.

What? You purport to be looking for a solution to a systemic proliferation of an undesirable behavior, but you assert that a discussion about solutions need not and in fact should not contain known facts about behavioral science and psychology? Pardon my inflammatory and unprofessional language, but that is pants-on-head retarded.

echo

You're being willfully obtuse. Lago's points are really simple:

• It is extremely desirable for a game to encourage the behaviors that the game is predicated on the players engaging in.
• People get super offended when you give away the show that that is what you are doing.

Both those should be blindingly fucking obvious. The second point is hilariously obvious, because in this very fucking thread you got super pissed at Lago for stating point one.

I mean, you were all up on accusing Lago of being:


Mirror much? For fuck's sake.

-Username17

[shadzar]

What do you as the game designer do about players who insist on playing intentionally narrow concepts when the game provides and should require otherwise? See, that's where the DMF part came in because they're the clearest example of this problem WRT D&D. Which most people play. Personally, I say that the game should implement some kind of DM-initiated punishment. Or cutoff from reward. Which is the same as punishment.

you cannot punish a playstyle from a game design standpoint unless your game itself is of such narrow focus you want it to be an extreme niche within a niche.

D&D works, as having MANY players, because of the allowance of MANY playstyles. you just pick the group of people with your playstyle preference and play with them when you find them.

D&D has been one of the games to ENFORCE narrow concepts:
AD&D: cleric = walking med-kit
3rd: meatshields, blasters, DPS, etc
4th: they just literally gave the classes the roles, tank, striker, leader...

what you have to do with ANY existing edition of D&D is make it work for your group. IF you were designing D&D, you could make things more focused. remove thief class and give those options out to other classes. but then you cannot turn around and complain about "unoptimized" when someone picks something that is broad and not narrow enough.

abandon strict classes, and use a point-buy system for abilities. this can HELP slow down the DMF creation, but as soon as someone finds a way to make it in this information age, then everyone will use it because it will go viral.

upon reading a few posts i wonder if it is the DMF that is the problem itself, or just the disassociated players. Player sits back and ignores everything unless it is his turn to do something. i think you actually mention participation on some level in one of the earlier posts in this thread.

[MGuy]

Negative Reinforcement (IE punishing) people for playing DMFs is a shaky foot to lead with when trying to solve his core issue which I believe is the fact that he wants to change people's expectations. For one "punishing" people for playing the wrong way isn't fun for anyone. It is not fun for the person who is being punished and it is not fun for other people who are supposed to be playing the game with mentioned person. Beyond that it antagonizes the people who play in mentioned way you don't like. So no, that's a stupid way to think about going about it and I'mm not being indirect because I'd directly just not play with motherfuckers who wanna play like that.

If you want to "encourage" X type of behavior you just make it so your game enables and encourages that behavior because, like it or not, people will STILL play DMFs because that is what media suggests you should be able to play and succeed with. If your game doesn't allow it those people will either play with a group that makes it work or not play your game and complain that it exists (IE 2E Grognards).

[Maj]

People who play DMFs are playing that kind of character precisely because they don't want to put in the effort. Playing a DMF is the roleplaying equivalent of not putting a ring on it: it means, "I couldn't be arsed enough to commit to playing."

Even the newbies at our table who made something akin to a DMF because they thought it would be an easy way to get into the game wanted their character to be able to do something other than hit things - within the first couple hours of play.

You can't punish a DMF player inside the game because they don't actually care enough about the game to care about the punishment. They're not really playing to begin with, so why should they give a damn?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Negative Reinforcement (IE punishing) people for playing DMFs is a shaky foot to lead with when trying to solve his core issue which I believe is the fact that he wants to change people's expectations.

Ideally, you shouldn't need any kind of reinforcement at all. I mean, tabletop roleplaying should be its own universal reward. But we're not at that point yet.

You can't punish a DMF player inside the game because they don't actually care enough about the game to care about the punishment. They're not really playing to begin with, so why should they give a damn?

I'm pretty cynical, but I'm not that cynical. While there will always be some people who are so disengaged that they are going to dig in their heels as much as possible, a lot of the Daves and Kenpachis are taking the path of least resistance. They don't play DMFs because they don't want to roleplay in principle so much as the game is set up to reward people both in-game and in-story who participate only when it suits them as much or even more as people who actively contribute.

[Maj]

I don't consider myself cynical, at all.

In our games, the people who started off playing DMFs ended up asking the DM to help expand their role in the party because they didn't actually want to be a DMF. They wanted something else to do so they could engage in other parts of the story.

The exceptions have always been a That Guy player.

[Orion]

Psychology Digression:

Negative reinforcement as defined by Skinner is not punishment. Actually, Skinner didn't like using punishments at all, because he found the effects disturbing.

To "reinforce" a behavior is to reward it. The reward can be positive--giving someone something like a gold star, a free cookie or a new spell--or negative--turning off a loud noise, removing an obnoxious restriction and so on.

The classic example of negative reinforcement is interrogation. Rather than threatening the suspect with bad things if he doesn't talk, you start off by keeping them in shitty conditions and then offer to stop inconveniencing them if they cooperate.

[echoVanguard]

I'm kind of amused now. Do you really think that game designers -- or hell, any kind of engineering or marketing team -- doesn't view their userbase in the most cynical terms possible during the design phase and then retroactively clean up their language and terms of art when it's time for the users to see it?

We don't. We make cynical concessions when they're necessary, but it's necessary to have a certain amount of faith in your userbase from a creative standpoint to design an engaging product. Slapping a smiley-face on a bag of manure after production is both actively destructive to the industry and self-defeating in the long run.

Like I said, I'm aware that when the finished product gets to shelves and whatever you'll have to put on a big shiny face and lie: "No no, we're not punishing the Daves; we're rewarding the Saras in hopes of encouraging the Daves." Mostly because of people like you. But make no mistake, this thread is about correcting the behavior of Dave with negative reinforcement, because positive reinforcement and stealth punishment ain't cutting the mustard.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're going to get anywhere with that sort of a design model. If you want to encourage people to play a certain way, you give them the tools to do so and make it more desirable than the alternative. That's pretty straightforward. In classical behavioral conditioning, Negative Reinforcement is the removal of an undesired stimulus when the desired behavior is displayed - in other words, presenting negative reinforcement anytime someone does not behave in the desired fashion. This is highly restrictive because it disallows all behavior except the desired behavior, and is directly opposed to one of the major selling points of a TTRPG - the breadth of potential play styles and options.

You're being willfully obtuse. Lago's points are really simple:

*It is extremely desirable for a game to encourage the behaviors that the game is predicated on the players engaging in.

*People get super offended when you give away the show that that is what you are doing.

Both those should be blindingly fucking obvious. The second point is hilariously obvious, because in this very fucking thread you got super pissed at Lago for stating point one.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so grossly misinterpret my statements. I did not "get super pissed" at Lago at any point, and particularly not for stating that "it is desirable to encourage desired behaviors". I expressed disdain for Lago's assertion that we should discuss behavioral issues without using concepts from behavioral science. The fact that you are accusing me of something which is completely at right angles to what my post actually said makes it very clear which of us is being willfully obtuse.

echo

[Username17]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so grossly misinterpret my statements. I did not "get super pissed" at Lago at any point, and particularly not for stating that "it is desirable to encourage desired behaviors". I expressed disdain for Lago's assertion that we should discuss behavioral issues without using concepts from behavioral science. The fact that you are accusing me of something which is completely at right angles to what my post actually said makes it very clear which of us is being willfully obtuse.

You are deeply confused. Also a pretentious twat, what with insisting on referring to "game designers" in the first person plural as if you spoke for all of them - for all of us - which you clearly don't.

The place where you lost your shit over Lago's basic assertion #1 was here:

As the designer, my job is to determine three things:
[snip]
Note that "stop people from playing in a way that I don't like" isn't anywhere on that list.

Because, as Lago pointed out very astutely: keeping people from playing in a way you don't like is your entire fucking job as a game designer. You keep trying to recast this point as a "different strokes for different folks" argument, but that is fucking bullshit. Because when you design a game you are not supposed to be speaking for or to every single person who ever played or considered playing a game, you're designing one fucking game. And if you can't get people to play it the way you intended it is because you have either failed as a designer, failed as a communicator, or deliberately misled people into signing up for a game that did not actually provide the things the players thought they were going to get when they signed on to play it.

Which comes back to Lago's point #2: you reacted negatively to him stating something that was incredibly fucking obvious (that you need to set up incentives to keep people out of undesirable playspace) on the grounds that... hurpaderp somethingsomething RPGsite fun is good. That was embarrassingly stupid, and I feel embarrassed on your behalf. You should also feel embarrassed on your own behalf, but even if you don't it just means that you are a sociopath who lacks the capacity for shame.

So Lago's point #2: obviously we need to obfuscate the fact that we're setting up incentives to avoid undesirable playspace because otherwise people exactly like you will throw temper tantrums consisting of several pages of pretentious whining. Exactly like you are doing now. And indeed, like many people are doing right now on this very thread.

Now personally, I don't think that "punishment" as used in the thread title is particularly good to describe this. I prefer "incentives", because it makes people think they are getting candy or money or some shit. In short: I like to use the word "incentives" because of Lago's point #2. My preferred incentive is to put the DMF class into the game as an NPC class. People understand that playing Commoners, Adepts, and Aristocrats is a shitty waste of time. Hell, they understand that Warriors are not real PC choices. And the fact is that writing "Fighter" on your character sheet isn't really different from writing "Warrior" in ways that count. So simply by putting "Fighter" into the "this is not a real class" list would solve a very great chunk of the problem.

Then you present sword using classes who have actual abilities like Paladins, Rangers, and Warlords. And if they baby's first RPG characters, they might indeed simply freeze up during the MTP sections and wander around combat making basic sword attacks. But at least if they warming up to the possibilities of RPGs they would have the option of using their additional abilities to heal, scout, and diplomacize.

In short: the game would be massively improved if the DMF character classes were put up on a high and undesirable shelf (the dreaded "NPC Class" label). That is a negative incentive for playing one, which is "punishment" as Lago defined it for the purpose of this thread. And actually mentioning actual behavioral psychology terms while doing it would not help, because people exactly like you would get super pissed about how they were being manipulated or being told how to have fun "by the man!" and they'd rebel against it and make shitty characters that hurt the entire game just to show how "individualistic" they were.

-Username17

[echoVanguard]

And actually mentioning actual behavioral psychology terms while doing it would not help, because people exactly like you would get super pissed about how they were being manipulated or being told how to have fun "by the man!" and they'd rebel against it and make shitty characters that hurt the entire game just to show how "individualistic" they were.

Apparently you are laboring under a misconception. I am not arguing for the use of behavioral psychology terms in the game materials - I am arguing for their use in this thread so that we can discuss the concepts at hand accurately. But to be fair, I think the chances of anyone actually addressing the points I expressed are pretty remote at this juncture.

Incidentally, Frank, my previous references to "we" refer to the members of my design team, not game designers as a whole. If you take a look at the context of my statements in my posts with that understanding, it might make a little more sense.

echo

[K]

You've failed as a designer if you are using reinforcement to make people play the kind of game you want.

Instead, you should just not make options available that you don't want to be available. Thus, no NPC classes at all, no too-high level adjustments, and no rewarding system mastery by including crap options because all of those things can fail to actually make the game you wanted.

Reinforcement can fail because people are contrary and/or ignorant, thus reinforcement is a strictly inferior game design principle.

[ishy]

Because, as Lago pointed out very astutely: keeping people from playing in a way you don't like is your entire fucking job as a game designer.
-Username17

Saying that Lago has a point is fucking crazy talk. Lago claims that getting people to play the game in the way you want is the most important thing of game designing. And now you are claiming it is your entire job to keep people from playing in ways you don't like.
Those points of view are insane.
There are games which are designed to give players tools, which they can use to play the game in any way they fucking want. Even if people break the mold in games in which there is only one true way to play, many people don't mind because it can actually be fun.

I mean fuck, are you going to say the creators of Warcraft 3 "have either failed as a designer, failed as a communicator, or deliberately misled people" because people used it to play DOTA?
- Edit: same question for creators of half-life when people created Counterstrike.

[Whipstitch]

That's some of the most obtuse shit I've seen in a while.

[Kaelik]

I mean fuck, are you going to say the creators of Warcraft 3 "have either failed as a designer, failed as a communicator, or deliberately misled people" because people used it to play DOTA?
- Edit: same question for creators of half-life when people created Counterstrike.

You are an idiot.

When you give people the ability to mod your game, then by definition, one of the things you want them to do is mod your game.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago claims that getting people to play the game in the way you want is the most important thing of game designing. And now you are claiming it is your entire job to keep people from playing in ways you don't like.

Whut? Putting in a rule that incentivizes people to act in a certain way is the exact same thing as putting in a rule that punishes people for behaving the opposite way.

If you reward people for roleplaying or building their character or treating their teammates a certain way, you've contrariwise implemented a relative punishment for not doing such. Thus any addition or omission you make to the game by definition means that you are corralling people into behaving in a certain way. This seems so incredibly obvious to me that I am completely floored that this is apparently a controversial observation.

[Libertad]

Because, as Lago pointed out very astutely: keeping people from playing in a way you don't like is your entire fucking job as a game designer.
-Username17

A game designer's job is to create a game which people will want to play.

And people will take the game in directions which the designers don't intend. Doesn't mean the designers screwed up, or that the RPG's a failure.

[hyzmarca]

Whut? Putting in a rule that incentivizes people to act in a certain way is the exact same thing as putting in a rule that punishes people for behaving the opposite way.

No, it's not. Positive Reinforcement is more effective and long-lasting than Punishment is.

To wit. If you give someone a blowjob every time he makes an optimized wizard, he's going to keep making optimized wizards even after you stand up and tell him to put his pants back on, because he associates optimized wizards with fun.

If you beat this same person with a baseball bat every time he makes a fighter, he's going to stop making fighters right up until you leave the room, then he's going to make another fighter while your back is turned. Because Punishment teaches him to not get caught.

Punishment is not effective at permanently correcting behavior and has a great many negative consequences such as inducing fear and anxiety. This is bad. The players should not fear the DM. It isn't healthy.

Note that not getting something that you wanted is only a punishment if you expected to get that thing in the first place. I want Rebecca Romijn to walk into my bedroom wearing nothing but blue bodypaint. The fact that she does not do this is in no way a punishment for me.

In any event, if you want to teach people not to play DMFs via a reinforcement or punishment system, you they need to be able to correct their behavior immediately. That means you need a flexible advancement system that allows a Level 10 DMF to class-change into a Wizard and be just as effective as someone who has been a Wizard since level 1.

One way to use this is to rip off FFV's job system or FFX-2's Dressspheres, were your class is a piece of equipment that can be changed at will. This way when people realize that their DMF isn't as effective as they hoped, they can fix the problem immediately without further disrupting the game.

[Orion]

I mean, we just have to pick a discipline to borrow our jargon from. if we're talking like economists, then of course a punishment for A is the same as a reward for not-A. But to a psychologist, it isn't the same at all. That's because psychologists don't care about whether people are measurably wealthier or more powerful, they care about whether they feel good or bad about their experiences, so for them a "punishment" is something that makes you feel bad, and a reward makes you feel good. Making one person feel good is not equivalent to making everyone else feel bad, or vice versa.

Lago and possibly Frank are staking out the position that we designers working behind the scenes should approach the system like economists, and writers preparing material for publication should present it like psychologists, and I think that's a defensible position. If the question on the table is "what behaviors should we incentivize" it doesn't really matter if you use the word punish or reward when deciding.

However, since I'm assuming the designer and the writer will in fact often be the same people, and since design happens in semi-public spaces now, and because the way we frame things affects the way we think about them, I think it would ideally be better to talk like a psychologist at every stage of design.

[K]

"Incentives" still means that people have the choice to take terrible options.

I mean, the premise of this entire thread is already predicated on the assumption that people are making substandard characters in systems with clearly better choices.

So why does anyone think that additional incentives/rewards/punishments are going to stop people from taking options they want?

The guy playing a Bard or a Fighter is already fine with being a weaker character because he values the concept so highly. What makes anyone think that any amount of incentives is going to make him play differently?

The only solution is to not have bad options at chargen.