Author: Mr. Analytical (---.clara.net)
Date: 11-01-2003 05:29
So what we have here is a reasonable account of many game-theoretical concepts and some stuff about how it could be useful to game design.
Don't see it.
Game theory is largely about modelling strategic interractions, while I think this can shed light on games that ARE about strategic interractions (i.e. tabletop boardgames etc ) I don't think they're of any use to thinking about RPGs beyond the conceptual analysis of there being different kinds of strategic relationships.
The problem here is that the bulk of what distinguishes RPGs from boardgames and wargames is largely metagame. It's not objective and it's not easily quantified.
I don't see it... I just don't.
what makes things worse is that a good game theoretic understanding of boardgames isn't exactly available to us so there's so much theoretical work involved here it's not even clear where to start.
Over and above the problem of the fact that RPGs and different players place different values on things there's the fact that it's not competitive and that the actual challenge and characteristics of the game at the quantifible level frequently have absolutely nothing to do with the end result (fun or not fun).
for example...
GM has a quite combat heavy game set up for new players. It's a formula which has worked in the past for him and he's damn good at it. but the players hate combat... so even if they win the result of the evening is a low score as nobody had fun. however, around this comes table chatter... people start chatting amongst themselves and end up having fun that wayh. the result is that the "session" was a success because people had fun but the substance of the game had nothing to do with it.
I think that you're not seeing the wood for the cliches here... RPGing is a game but it's also a social activity. And quantifying a social activity isn't exactly easy especially when the outcome is something as abastract as fun.
I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just saying that maybe in 2 or 3 hundred years we might have enough of an understanding of human social dynamics and amusement to be able to quantify an activity such as an RPG and until then Game Theory is of little or no use to game designers beyond wargames and boardgames and the use of cool jargon.
If you look at other columns with a similar approach you'll see that it's been focussed around "tactical roleplaying" which is essentially DD and other individual-level wargames. But even those theorists drew the line at applying strategic analysis to the whole thing... like the whole debate over the riddle of Steel and it's use of meta-game information as a part of its combat system.
|
|
