In this video, Errant Signal talks about win states in video games. He makes the specific case that win states contextualize play: Once you have a win state, the player will characterize the interactions in the system by whether they help or hinder them in attaining the win state. Which are useful? Which are useless?
In other words, win states are play-shapers. “So powerful when it comes to driving player motivation that any and all mechanics tend to be viewed through that lens.”
And due to this power, win states also reduce a player’s willingness to experiment or express themselves. Instead, players seek to find optimal strategies, minimize risks, and min-max their stats.
All of this also goes for lose states, but the effect tends to be less severe: A lose state tells players what they want to avoid, but not what they want to achieve. So lose states push players away from certain activities, but don’t force an agenda onto the player. “Do whatever you want, just not this!”
WIN STATES IN RPGs
I find most of Errant Signal’s output interesting: It’s thoughtfully provocative even when I don’t agree with it. But I found this particular video interesting because of how its thinking can be applied to tabletop roleplaying games.
Of course, we’ve been told time and time again that roleplaying games have no winners or losers. This is true insofar as the players are (generally) not competing against each other. But it’s almost universally bollocks if we’re talking about the group as a whole.
This is is particularly true as we begin to consider specific types of win states.
First, Errant State talks about the difference between boolean and non-boolean win states. Boolean win states are discrete and absolute; a single, concrete goal which is pursued. Non-boolean win states, on the other hand, are more about how much you won by (high scores, for example, or track records).
Second, we have explicit win states and implicit win states. Explicit win states are those recognized by the game. Implicit win states, on the other hand, are ones not explicitly recognized by the game, but which players nevertheless interpret that way. (For example, owning all the properties in Assassin’s Creed II or earning money in The Sims.)
Another way to look at this is that players are capable of creating win states for themselves even if the game does not. For example, here’s a guy playing Super Mario Bros. with the goal of getting the lowest score possible. (In doing so, he’s trying to break the record set by this guy five years ago.)
RPGs are filled with implicit win states, particularly non-boolean ones. And a large preponderance of RPG scenarios will feature explicit win states.
So this is worth thinking about: Are you pushing win states onto your players? Is your game system pushing them? And, if so, what effect is that having on how your players approach the game?
And if neither you nor your system are doing that, what win states are the players defining for themselves?
In either case, how can you shape those win states (and lose states) in order to positively affect game play (in either rewarding or interesting ways)?
Something Apocalypse World does: “Retire this character to safety” as a later advancement option, so players have a choice of a safe ending when they’re at a satisfactory point with a character.
I’m using something similar in Slingtown: when a character doesn’t have any active problems (Threats), they’re retired from play. “If you’re playing the game, you’re playing someone who has problems”.
Excellent post. I’ve been thinking about the game-design concepts that bridge the video/tabletop genres, and this is a great example.