designing

Compliance Techniques and RPG Design 3

0

Continuing my series about the commonalities between RPG design patterns (an RPG’s system is the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play) and the ideas presented in Robert B. Cialdini’s Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (certain human behavior patterns can be leveraged to get people to agree to things), I next want to talk about social proof.

Since humans are social animals, we often determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct. This is especially true when it comes to determining what is correct behavior, which we attempt to do by observing the behavior of others or by inferring their behavior from evidence. For example, at an unfamiliar social event most of us will adopt the strategy (either consciously or unconsciously) of “do what everybody else is doing” to fit in. Leveraging this tendency, “compliance professionals” can get us to do something by showing us evidence (either real or manufactured) that other people are doing it. Bartenders will start their shift by putting some money in the tip jar so that customers will think that other customers are putting money in there and follow suit. Clubs create artificially long lines outside so that passers-by will think that “everyone” wants to get into that club. Social proof works most powerfully when observing people that seem like us, which accounts for the common advertising trope of seeing “regular people” enjoying the product in question. In the RPG context, there’s an interesting trend of including replays in rulebooks (Fiasco, for example) which are accounts of actual people (just like us!) playing the game. By giving players someone to emulate the rules can get us to behave the way the designer wants us to, and accept other players behaving that way.

Apparently we are most prone to looking to others for cues to acceptable behavior when we are unsure of ourselves, such as when the situation is unclear or ambiguous. One particular interesting manifestation of this is that people encountering ambiguity as part of a group are less likely to take action than when alone – if you see the other people in the group not acting that’s a subtle cue to you that you shouldn’t act either (and they’re picking up the cue from you because you’re not acting either). In the real world this can have the effect of crowds not helping victims of crime or accidents if it’s not clear that help is needed. In an RPG context there’s a common pattern in games where the session starts slow because no one makes the “first move” to get things rolling. In the real world, the recommended solution for getting help from a crowd is to single out individuals and ask them for help. In RPGs, a common solution is to put individual players “in the hot seat” by demanding that their character respond to a specific situation that is especially relevant to them (Sorcerer‘s kickers, for example). Even if the other players aren’t responding to the situation, they aren’t “like us” anymore because they haven’t been singled out, so we are less likely to copy their apparent inaction.

I can’t think of many RPG designs that consciously leverage the ideas from this chapter as much as the previous two. In actual play, though, I think it shows up a lot – experienced players use role-modeling all the time to introduce new players, for example, and many games require someone to “break the ice” before the game starts to hum. If I’m right that not many RPGs use these techniques to get players to accept “unwelcome content” then it may be a fruitful area to mine for design ideas. Creating asymmetry between players, for example, might help move the “center of gravity” for what the group will accept because our social proof instincts won’t account for that asymmetry.

 

Compliance Techniques and RPG Design 2

3

Building on my previous post about commonalities between RPG design patterns and the ideas presented in Robert B. Cialdini’s Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, I next want to talk about commitment and consistency.

According to Cialdini’s research, if I can get you to make a commitment (that is, to take a stand, to go on record), I will have set the stage for your automatic and ill-considered consistency with that earlier commitment. Once a stand is taken, there is a natural tendency to behave in ways that are stubbornly consistent with the stand. Once a person has said something, they don’t like to go back on what they’ve said – they will instead adjust their future behavior to keep in synch with their newly committed “self image” rather than backtrack. Once a person agrees that they believe in a particular point of view, for example, they are more likely to provide time or money to support an activity consistent with that point of view than if they had simply been asked for the time or money point-blank – refusing the request would feel like a violation of the “self image” they’ve established for themselves as a believer.

A “compliance professional” example of this is a technique sometimes seen in car dealerships: A prospective customer is presented with a very attractive price as a special deal. The salesman starts working up the paperwork, financing, etc., but then before the deal is closed a “mistake” is discovered in the price and the salesman says he’s only allowed to complete the sale at a “correct” higher price. Since the customer has already committed to wanting to purchase this particular car they are unlikely to call off the deal, even if they wouldn’t have originally agreed to purchase at that price.

An excellent example of this in RPGs is the conflict mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard. Before the conflict mechanic can be engaged, the players and GM need to agree on “what’s at stake” in the conflict and the opening “arena of conflict” – talking, physical, fighting, or gunfighting. Players will often quickly agree to verbally argue with an NPC over disagreements. Once the mechanical conflict mechanism begins, the GM uses game-mechanical resources to resist the player, requiring the player to use resources of their own to push for their side. Since the resources get used up, the two sides always have the option of “escalating” (moving to a new arena of conflict) to get more resources to push for their position. Throwing a punch instead of an insult, for example, would escalate from talking to fighting. In this way, the game encourages players to have their characters perform actions that seem extreme in retrospect relative to what was at stake in the conflict. The “did we really do the right thing when we shot that woman for cheating on her husband?” feeling is a really compelling feature of the DITV experience, and it’s achieved by getting players to commit to wanting a goal when the cost is low (“just talking”) and then getting them to stay consistent with that goal rather than admit they don’t really want it as the price of staying in the conflict goes up.

A further nuance to this commitment phenomenon is that putting the commitment on paper seems to deepen the commitment. Writing things down makes them feel more “official” to us, and can also apply social pressure when we realize that others can read our words (we are all strongly averse to seeming inconsistent to our peers). One “compliance professional” method of leveraging this is that door-to-door sales organizations find that cancellations drop dramatically when the customer, rather than the salesperson, physically fills out the order form. An obvious example of this in RPGs is writing Beliefs in Burning Wheel – having written Beliefs seems to be a much stronger motivator for character action than simply keeping a nebulous “character concept” in the player’s head, even though Beliefs can be changed at virtually any time.

Another aspect of commitment is that people tend to value something extremely highly if they’ve gone through a great deal of trouble or pain to attain it. Rites of passage in cultures around the world, or even fraternity hazing, demonstrate this. Anyone who makes it through the ordeal finds it much easier to believe that being a member of the organization is very important (otherwise they wouldn’t have gone through the ordeal, right?). A potential RPG example of this might be groups who value system mastery in complex, crunchy systems but during actual play will skip using the rules in favor of freeform roleplaying – rather than being used as procedures for play, mastering the complex rules can serve as a signaling mechanism to the rest of the group that you’re the kind of “serious gamer” that they want to freeform with, someone who’s not going to flake out or introduce fiction that will “ruin” the story that they are invested in.

The way that outside pressures can impact commitments is really interesting:

“Social scientists have determined that we accept inner responsibility for a behavior when we think we have chosen to perform it in the absence of strong outside pressures. A large reward is one such external pressure. It may get us to perform a certain action, but it won’t get us to accept inner responsibility for the act. Consequently, we won’t feel committed to it. The same is true of a strong threat; it may motivate immediate compliance, but it is unlikely to produce long-term commitment.”

When dealing with children, for example, it’s been shown that strong threats of punishment are less effective at achieving long-term behavioral changes than milder urging (the old “I’ll be disappointed ” approach).

This interaction between pressure and commitment may be related to the dissatisfaction that many people feel when FATE‘s compel mechanic is used to try to steer characters to make particular moral choices, or when a player feels obligated to use a suboptimal skill in a situation because “that’s what my character would do”. By connecting a too-strong mechanical reward or punishment to the choice, the player is unable to feel committed to it.

Update: One huge RPG example of written commitment that I want to revisit in the future is GM prep.

 

 

Compliance Techniques and RPG Design

6

A few weeks ago I read the really interesting Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini. It’s a book that talks about the psychology of “compliance techniques”, mechanisms by which people are convinced to agree to things. The book identifies several reliable patterns of human behavior that can be leveraged to get people to agree to things, and illustrates the points by talking about both controlled psychology experiments and empirical observations of people who are successful at getting people to do things (salespeople, fund-raisers, recruiters, etc.). While an interesting and enjoyable read in its own right, what fascinated me were the correlations I noticed between the ideas in the book and some effective RPG design patterns. This shouldn’t be surprising – compliance techniques are about getting people to agree to things and the standard “Lumpley Principle” Forge definition of RPG system is “the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play” (emphasis added). I’m hoping that looking at some RPG mechanics through the lens of these compliance techniques might provide some useful insight into RPG design.

The first principle identified is Reciprocation: we want to repay, in kind, what another person has provided to us. The most common way that “compliance professionals” leverage this is to provide an unsolicited favor for someone and then ask for a favor in return – charities that send a sheet of free address labels along with their requests for money get a much better response rate than those that just ask for money. The most obvious RPG analog here is turn structure: I let you take a swing at my guy, now you need to let me take a swing at yours. I accept some of your fiction, now you have to accept some of mine.

A more nuanced use of the Reciprocation rule is to offer a reciprocal concession. “Do you want to buy our top-of-the-line model? No? Maybe our mid-range model is more in your price range.” Even if you weren’t originally in the market for anything at all, you are more likely to consider parting with your money after this exchange – after all, the emotional part of your brain is thinking that the salesman moved a bit on his end so it’s only fair for you to move on yours. An RPG analog is the saving throw:

GM: When you step on the floor you trigger a fire trap. Take 10 damage.
Player: No fair!

vs.

GM: When you step on the floor you trigger a fire trap. It does 20 damage, but roll your Reflex save for half.
Player: [rolls dice] Whew! Made it! Only 10 damage for me!

In the sales technique, even if the salesperson is using using a fixed “start big, then offer a concession” strategy, it feels like you have negotiated them down and you therefore feel more responsible for the final deal. In an RPG, offering the saving throw makes you feel like your character’s abilities are the deciding factor rather than an arbitrary GM decision to cause damage.

I’m sure there are more examples. I’m hoping to make this a series of blog posts laying out the basics (this was just the broad outline of ideas from a single chapter) after which I’ll be able to dive into a little more depth.

 

Brick & Mortar: Last of the Independents

0

I just submitted a game to the April 2011 Round of The Ronnies. I used the terms “amazon” and “chains”, and it’s a pretty rough draft since the rules of the contest call for games to be created from scratch in 24 hours.

It’s called Brick & Mortar: Last of the Independents. It’s a GM-less game that follows the story of three or four characters that converge on a failing retail establishment during a catastrophic situation like a zombie apocalypse or alien invasion.

 

Storied Age featured on Mom’s Basement Podcast

0

Episode 26 of the Mom’s Basement Podcast has a discussion of Final Hour of a Storied Age based on a playtest they did. There are some interesting thoughts and feedback, and I learned even more by listening to the audio recording of the session that they sent me (including some places where they way they were playing wasn’t the way I intended, highlighting places the rules need work). I have some followup comments on the RPGCrosstalk discussion thread for the episode. The “verite” style of the podcast probably isn’t for everyone (and they used at least one word I wish they hadn’t), but I appreciate their playtesting and their feedback.

 

Playtesters Needed for Storied Age

0

I’m looking for beta playtest groups for my game Final Hour of a Storied Age: A Roleplaying Game of Epic Fantasy. The playtesting I’ve done with the 0.67 revision has been very successful, producing fun sessions and really satisfying Epic Fantasy stories. There have been a few hiccups along the way, but they all seemed to be in line with the problems that any new group might have when learning a new game. In order to get a better handle on what still needs work in the game before I officially publish (either with the mechanics themselves or with they way I explain them in the text) I need some feedback from groups playing the game without my direct participation. I would really appreciate any beta playtesting people are willing to do for me. I would absolutely love audio recordings of the game in play, honest reactions, AP reports, or really any feedback people would be willing to give me. I’m happy to answer questions about the game, and would appreciate feedback or discussion about the text itself even if you’re unable to playtest.

I believe the game works best with 3 or 4 players, but might work with as few as 2 or as many as 5. The recent playtests I’ve done have been 3 player games and have both finished story arcs in four 3-hour sessions. I posted the first arc in AP podcast form as episodes 10 to 13 of the Designer vs. Reality podcast, and in text summary form on my blog (here, here, here, and here). I’ve got the audio from the second arc in the can I’ll be editing that and posting podcasts and text summaries over the next few weeks.

I think there’s value in transparency in the design process so I’m happy to discuss the game in the open (I blog here, and also participate on Story-Games, Praxis, The Forge, and RPG Geek). E-mail conversations are great, too, if you’d prefer a less public conversation (I’m dan.maruschak@gmail.com).

FATE Point Bidding Wars Suck

0

In my Thursday night Skype game, I’m participating in a campaign of the Dresden Files RPG. I really want to love this system (I’m a big fan of the source material, and playing SOTC was what got me actually playing games instead of just reading them a year and half ago, and was the basis for forming my Thursday night Skype group), but I’ve got a few issues with FATE that make loving it difficult. One of them came up in the last session, and I think it’s fundamental to the system: FATE point bidding wars suck.

After you roll the dice on a skill check in FATE, you can invoke aspects to give yourself a +2 bonus to the roll by invoking an aspect (i.e. you spend a Fate point and indicate why a particular aspect is relevant to the particular action you are undertaking). When you make an opposed roll against an NPC, and the NPC has his own Fate points, the GM can do the same thing for his side of the roll. So here’s the situation: you roll the dice and fail, but care enough about the result that you want to succeed, so you spend a Fate point and invoke your most relevant aspect. Then the GM spends a Fate point on one of the NPC’s aspects and you’re now losing the roll again. You can either suck up that failure, feeling like you wasted a Fate point, or your can spend another point on another aspect, probably one that isn’t as on-point as the first one (otherwise you would have invoked it first), and now you’re winning again. And then the GM spends another Fate point, so now you’re two Fate points down and have to eat the failure, or you can spend another one… Which you do, but now you’re probably getting into “that’s a stretch” territory with your aspects. This scenario combines the negative feelings that come from resource-loss-avoidance with the negative feelings that come from weak ties between the mechanics and the fiction. That’s a really lame and fun-sucking place to be. Intellectually, I suppose that draining off an opponent’s Fate points is a valuable mechanical thing to achieve, but it doesn’t have a strong emotional payoff so I always find this scenario to be an anti-fun element of FATE.

Final Hour of a Storied Age 0.67

0

A new playtest draft of my epic fantasy roleplaying game is available: Final Hour of a Storied Age rev 0.67.

Changes in 0.67:

  • Added initial action die sizes to quick-reference sheet
  • Clarified rules about character trait initial die sizes
  • Changed term: stage –> phase (harder to confuse w/ segment)
  • Expanded play advice section

The default PDF has digest-sized pages which are meant to be read in 2-up view. The pages fit side-by-side on a landscape oriented 8.5×11 page, but it can be tricky to get the PDF to print out like that, so I created this printer-friendly version, too: rev 0.67 printer friendly (it also replaces the shaded boxes with outlines).

Final Hour of a Storied Age 0.66

0

A new playtest draft of my epic fantasy roleplaying game is available: Final Hour of a Storied Age rev 0.66.

Changes in 0.66:

  • Fixed “Spending Story Dice” text: 10-14 = 2 traits, 15-20 = 4 traits
  • Added summary tables along with text in Part IV
  • Edited for clarity and cosmetic improvment

There are still some places where I know the text needs work, but it’s really hard to get a handle on how to fix them without understanding what people do or don’t understand about the processes or the text that I have, so I think I’ve taken it as far as I can on my own for right now.

Game Chef FAIL

0

I didn’t make the deadline for Game Chef this year. I got a lot of work done on my game (check out my Praxis thread for details) but the game was just too big for me to complete in one week. I like a lot of the ideas I had so I’ll probably keep developing it anyway.

Go to Top