Goal-Based Backwards Design

[marko]

I don't see what the problem is.

No problem.  Just folk expressiong their own general views as well.

I just needed a summary, which was kindly posted by LauraMars.  I'm happy.  The article seems like a great bit of info for covering those aspects.

[Tamarin]

I'm going to give my praise out to Falconer again, and tell you to pretty much ignore Ritley.  Your post is a valid, well-thought out manner of RPing, one that I'm going to try and wrap my mind around a little bit more to enhance my own abilities.  Your approach is broad-spectrum, and can be applied to -any- roleplay scenario, from SoI to Harshlands to Armageddon, all the way over to tabletop RPGs and MMORPGs, so claims like "you're new...be new and shut up" really aren't valid in this instance.

*shakes Falconer's hand, welcoming him to the army of addicted souls*

[Ritley]

I'm going to give my praise out to Falconer again, and tell you to pretty much ignore Ritley.  Your post is a valid, well-thought out manner of RPing, one that I'm going to try and wrap my mind around a little bit more to enhance my own abilities.  Your approach is broad-spectrum, and can be applied to -any- roleplay scenario, from SoI to Harshlands to Armageddon, all the way over to tabletop RPGs and MMORPGs, so claims like "you're new...be new and shut up" really aren't valid in this instance.

*shakes Falconer's hand, welcoming him to the army of addicted souls*

I never said that. That makes me really mad actually. I did -not- say that, I said to not post with that amount of arrogance, and superiority because he's new. I didn't say, "Your new, shut up". read the whole post next time Tamarin.

[jhunter]

Noone did say "You're new, shut up." Others were pretty much stating the same thing as you Ritley.

[Tamarin]

*looks at ritley's post*

Falconer, point is, your new.

*looks at one of Falconer's posts*

The goal is not to dictate any particular style of roleplaying as the sole proper one to players of Armageddon, but rather the presentation of an option that can be utilized for goal design and character motivation.

*looks back at ritley's post*

While your post would have probably been good for SOI, it's not here. Although your obviously intelligent, your still a newb to the game. Play a bit. Work out thing's yourself.

*scratches his chin*

Hmm...I disagree, Ritley.  You did pretty much tell him that his post was completely invalid, on the grounds that he is new.  He did NOT try to say that other styles of RP were invalid.  He did NOT make criticisms on anyone else's play.  What he DID do is to provide a methodical, well thought-out approach to roleplay.  Why can you not just leave it at that, let people who want to use it do so, and go on your merry way?

And for the record, I didn't find the original post "superior" at all.  Where are the people who hand out the Pulitzers?

[jhunter]

I stand corrected. Noone -else- did.

[Seeker]

Sometimes, reading the GDB makes me so sad.


Welcome Falconer.  It looks like you have things to bring to the party.


Seeker

[Ritley]

*looks at ritley's post*

Falconer, point is, your new.

*looks at one of Falconer's posts*

The goal is not to dictate any particular style of roleplaying as the sole proper one to players of Armageddon, but rather the presentation of an option that can be utilized for goal design and character motivation.

*looks back at ritley's post*

While your post would have probably been good for SOI, it's not here. Although your obviously intelligent, your still a newb to the game. Play a bit. Work out thing's yourself.

*scratches his chin*

Hmm...I disagree, Ritley.  You did pretty much tell him that his post was completely invalid, on the grounds that he is new.  He did NOT try to say that other styles of RP were invalid.  He did NOT make criticisms on anyone else's play.  What he DID do is to provide a methodical, well thought-out approach to roleplay.  Why can you not just leave it at that, let people who want to use it do so, and go on your merry way?

And for the record, I didn't find the original post "superior" at all.  Where are the people who hand out the Pulitzers?

You have to add up my first post and the second to get my point. What I was basically saying, was your information was slightly wrong, and your not gonna learn everything from just reading the doc's. And you need to get some experience IG. If anything I was trying to be helpful, I was not biting the head off a newbie, and I expect he was intelligent enough to realise that.


Besides, you can't tell me your perfect. I know many times when you bited the head off a newb. I never have, once.

[Tamarin]

Ritley you can't just say that his information is wrong without providing some reason why.  His take on RP isn't specific to armageddon.  It can be applied to all rp.  If you're willing to actually provide an argument, I'm willing to take your point into account.

[Ritley]

Ritley you can't just say that his information is wrong without providing some reason why.  His take on RP isn't specific to armageddon.  It can be applied to all rp.  If you're willing to actually provide an argument, I'm willing to take your point into account.

If you read my posts you'll find I did.

Also his post could be applied to some RP, but not all. You'll see why IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY DAMNED POSTS...GOD Tamarin you professional newb   ok, let's drop this now. Anyways, sure Falconer will do well. He seem's intelligent enough. Also, the only person who bites the heads off people is Naiona and her minions.... brainz.

[Tamarin]

I went back and picked through your posts.  Your arguments as I see them are as follows:

1. Falconer is still new.
2. You can't figure out everything from the docs.
3. You need to focus on staying alive.
4. You shouldn't think too deeply on your character.
5. It's not the goals that change, it's the character.

Now...

1. Again, he is new to Armageddon.  This is completely irrelevant because as I said, his approach is universal.  There is nothing at all that you can say to refute this, Ritley.

2. There is nothing in the docs at all that really addresses what he is talking about.  The docs are mosty designed to explain the specifics of the game world, whereas falconer's post is more of a psychological and behavioral breakdown of one method of playing a character.

3. I mildly agree with this.  Mildly.  However, there are some characters that do not need to focus on staying alive.  Nobles, for example, are pampered.  Also, once you have figured out how to stay alive...what next?   For many characters, staying alive no longer becomes a struggle, but a simple matter of perpetuating a certain pattern of existence, allowing them to focus on other things.  Once that's happened, then you have to start looking at greater goals.

4. I completely disagree.  This isn't an argument anyway, it's an opinion.  I respect your opinion that this is how you play your characters.  Hell, occasionally I play characters that way, but I also see the worth in heavily developing a character concept and keeping it in mind at all times.

5. Again, a matter of opinion.  See #4.

Happy?

[Ritley]

I went back and picked through your posts.  Your arguments as I see them are as follows:

1. Falconer is still new.
2. You can't figure out everything from the docs.
3. You need to focus on staying alive.
4. You shouldn't think too deeply on your character.
5. It's not the goals that change, it's the character.

Now...

1. Again, he is new to Armageddon.  This is completely irrelevant because as I said, his approach is universal.  There is nothing at all that you can say to refute this, Ritley.

2. There is nothing in the docs at all that really addresses what he is talking about.  The docs are mosty designed to explain the specifics of the game world, whereas falconer's post is more of a psychological and behavioral breakdown of one method of playing a character.

3. I mildly agree with this.  Mildly.  However, there are some characters that do not need to focus on staying alive.  Nobles, for example, are pampered.  Also, once you have figured out how to stay alive...what next?   For many characters, staying alive no longer becomes a struggle, but a simple matter of perpetuating a certain pattern of existence, allowing them to focus on other things.  Once that's happened, then you have to start looking at greater goals.

4. I completely disagree.  This isn't an argument anyway, it's an opinion.  I respect your opinion that this is how you play your characters.  Hell, occasionally I play characters that way, but I also see the worth in heavily developing a character concept and keeping it in mind at all times.

5. Again, a matter of opinion.  See #4.

Happy?

No, I never made a point stating that you need to focus on staying alive. You got the wrong end of the stick. My main point was, that Zalanthan's wouldn't have many want's... goals...e.t.c due to the fact the most important goal is hard enough... staying alive. That was what I ment. Not that the player need's to focus on staying alive, but he should RP it being a struggle to stay alive, and keep that as the character's main goal. Because that's waht is realistic.

Also, I do stick to character concepts heavilly, but I do not think about it for hours. I will stick to a concept, and instead of thinking about it, learnt it as I play.

[Anonymous]

Falconer, point is, your new. I mean, hell, I'm still new. I've played for over a year, and I have not even scratched the surface of the content of the world. You cannot work everything out from just looking at the doc's Falconer, there is so many undocumented thing's that you, as a player, have to work out yourself. Yes, while a character will have want's, desires...goals.... e.t.c, e.t.c, first they need to focus on staying alive. Because, that's what Zalanthas is about. Everyone has to struggle to survive. So much so, they forget a lot of their wants. Apart from Dwarves. While your post would have probably been good for SOI, it's not here. Although your obviously intelligent, your still a newb to the game. Play a bit. Work out thing's yourself.


Oh, and get rid of that superior attitude. I mean, god. And as Xygaxsaid, your job is not to evaluate other people's RP, but instead craft your own.


Oh yeah and welcome to crackageddon just play, do your job, instead of telling us how to do ours.

Survival -is- a want and a desire. If you do not desire or want to survive, you simply do not. It is -you- who comes off as arrogant and imbecilic, not Falconer.

Now... to show that Falconer is not here to dictate, but to assist:

The norms that I've set aren't going to work for everyone - in fact, they may stand as antithesis to the conceptions some players have of roleplaying. I've utilized this system with nearly every character I've had in the past two years, however, and have had marvellous results. Those I've shared the system with, who have likewise utilized it, agree. This should make a great deal more sense when I have subsequent articles posted. As with anything, take what works for you and ignore the rest. There isn't such a thing as right or wrong with this; it's just one particular pedagogy that you might find helpful.

and....

The goal is not to dictate any particular style of roleplaying as the sole proper one to players of Armageddon, but rather the presentation of an option that can be utilized for goal design and character motivation. If you disagree with the points therein, or have solidified your own style, that's excellent - my hat is off to you.

We greet retarded (sorry LauraMars and Hymwen) newbies with cheers, but someone with intelligence we welcome with antipathy?

I apologize for this ridiculous debate on a thread that possesses excellent potential. Allow Falconer to post, allow those who wish to read his articles a chance to do so, and exercise your right to withhold from reading them, if you so choose. There are more options available than 'read' and 'reply.'

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[Tamarin]

If that's true, Zalanthas would be stuck in the stone age, ritley.  Think about it.  If the main concern was staying alive at all time, no one would really have time to invent new technologies and progress.  You're really contradicting yourself, here.


I ask you this: what do you do with your character once you no longer have to worry about staying alive?  Are you saying that it's bad RP to be able to rise above this threshold of struggle?

edited to add: PS thank you Dirr.  Pretty much pulled those thoughts out of my own head.

[Ritley]

If that's true, Zalanthas would be stuck in the stone age, ritley.  Think about it.  If the main concern was staying alive at all time, no one would really have time to invent new technologies and progress.  You're really contradicting yourself, here.


I ask you this: what do you do with your character once you no longer have to worry about staying alive?  Are you saying that it's bad RP to be able to rise above this threshold of struggle?

Exactly my point. Why do you think the Zalanthan's have invented so little? besides, some people might make a living inventing, which keeps them alive, so that, in itself, is achieving the goal of staying alive. And while doing so they are inventing stuff. So, it is not entirely true, they'd be stuck in the stone age, because that's how they might stay alive. Inventing.

[Anonymous]

If that's true, Zalanthas would be stuck in the stone age, ritley. Think about it. If the main concern was staying alive at all time, no one would really have time to invent new technologies and progress. You're really contradicting yourself, here.


I ask you this: what do you do with your character once you no longer have to worry about staying alive? Are you saying that it's bad RP to be able to rise above this threshold of struggle?

He's not saying -that-, he merely stated that -most- PCs first have to survive, and other goals are secondary (which is true).

As with Falconer's post, Ritley's example does not apply to -all- characters.

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[Ritley]

If that's true, Zalanthas would be stuck in the stone age, ritley. Think about it. If the main concern was staying alive at all time, no one would really have time to invent new technologies and progress. You're really contradicting yourself, here.


I ask you this: what do you do with your character once you no longer have to worry about staying alive? Are you saying that it's bad RP to be able to rise above this threshold of struggle?

He's not saying -that-, he merely stated that -most- PCs first have to survive, and other goals are secondary (which is true).

As with Falconer's post, Ritley's example does not apply to -all- characters.

Semper Pax,

Dirr

Thank you.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

As a side note:

Most people who think others are arrogant are usually very arrogant themselves. Thanks again for the article, Falconer, and don't feel slighted or disliked.

They do this shit to every fucking body. They shoulda gotten asswhippings as children.

I hope to see you in game.

[Anonymous]

Most people who think others are arrogant are usually very arrogant themselves. Thanks again for the article, Falconer, and don't feel slighted or disliked.

This is true, I am a very arrogant man/woman.

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[flurry]

Welcome to Armageddon, Falconer.  Great post.  I definitely look forward to reading more of your posts.

I don't think I'll ever understand this thing of piling on a new player.  I hope you won't get discouraged, though, because it looks like you have a lot to bring to this community.

I also don't get why thoughtful, on-topic posts stir up this kind of negative reaction, and off-topic gigglefests are welcomed with open arms.  I think I'm giving up trying to figure that out.

[Ritley]

Look, I apoligize for even getting into this discussion. This has turned out stupidly. I was just trying to express my opinion in a civilised way, but it seems people think I'm trying to bite the head off Falconer, when I've made no fucking indication to that at all.

[WarriorPoet]

*Agrees with the above post by Venomz.*

This definately happens to everybody, which is why the GDB is such a hole. Thankfully most people's ego's stop at the Mantis-Head, so the game itself remains above and beyond the petty bickering we so often find here.

I'm an arrogant prick, myself. I just have enough manners to keep my hole shut when it's not going to add anything to the discussion at hand...

Regardless of the whining, know that the OP was read and appreciated by most of us. I would rather see you take a professional tone than dumb it down for us and say 'dudez... i know i'm a nwb but we ned to talk about pl0t development'.

-WP

[Anonymous]

I'm not telling anyone to withdraw their opinions, but could we not clutter this thread with bickering and arguments over who is right or wrong (start a new one in OOC crap)? Perhaps offering the author an iota of respect is not an unreasonable request.

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[Tamarin]

Hear hear.  Trim the thread.

[Falconer]

I'm going to go ahead and ignore the ad hominems and straw mans that don't speak directly to the content of the piece, though I will repeat that this article has been posted elsewhere, and the finished series will be part of an academic, interactive fiction journal - if the language and tone sets you off, that's completely understandable.  Do note, however, that this post was not made to dictate an objective framework for roleplaying (or in the words of Ritley, 'telling other players how to do their job'); it's merely one resource that may be used, or used in conjunction with other conceptions.  You may find it works well for you, or you may find that only bits and pieces can be applied to your characterization - disregard anything you feel isn't worthwhile.  

In response to some comments I found really interesting:

Bluefae wrote:

(I'm more of a Jungian girl myself, but a post-structuralist voice is certainly an appropos perspective.). In any event, having a wholistic view of the character as a constantly-changing organism that carries its history with it in its actions as well as its thoughts and feelings is a good way to represent this

To be honest, I've never considered Jung in regards to online roleplaying - Nietszche, Foucault, and Lyotard seemed the obvious choices because their sociology/literary theory seemed to directly address the essential focusing questions of both online world creation (society, crime, perception, cultural capital) and characterization, while avoiding many of the Freudian/Lacanian pitfalls.  (As a side note, I've been attempting to work out a stance on character creation that could utilize the mirror stage thesis, but haven't made much headway.)  That said, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on how you think Jung might be applied.  It's well worth considering.

Xygax wrote:

You seem to assert that "cyclical goals" are universally better than linear ones... WHY are cyclical goals better?

and

Also, I think that the question you struggle to answer, "How can I create a plot?" suffers from an ironic tendency to be an OOC one, just as the OOC goals you mention elsewhere in your article are.

Exactly.  To be honest, it's that sick irony that drove me to take on the topic in the first place, and as you've noted it creates an extremely difficult doldrum to escape.  I do think, however, that the question descends from one of the key delineations that has to be drawn in any RP MU* - where is the line drawn between the IC realm and the OOC realm?  MUSHes such as OtherSpace, for example, tend to embrace the OOC environment with dozens of global channels, OOC tells/pages, extensive IC public documentation, and logs of major RP events posted immediately after they occur by players and staff alike.  The experience on RPIs takes an altogether different approach, taking a minimalist OOC communication.  This does not, however, make the IC/OOC delineation any less important - I imagine the staff has had to ask themselves, "Just how much information on <insert organization here> do we make public on the website?  How much information is made available to the players of that organization?  How much information should characters discover ICly?"  I tend to agree with the RPI approach - keeping OOC knowledge of IC events and structures to a minimum helps to establish a sense of wonder and discovery for both players and their characters, yet a base level of knowledge has to be made available for players to use as a resource.  I suppose, tentatively, that the answer to the OOC/IC plot paradox is also one of idealist pragmatism: we must use our OOC understandings of effective plots and roleplaying to guide the groundwork of our characters, while utilizing the magic if to keep things as IC as possible.  Again, it's a tough one - I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as to how this balance can be struck, since we're both aware that it can't be avoided.

As for the question of the cyclical approach, I'd agree that it isn't neccessary to use it every time, particularly with minor wants and base needs.  Joe wants a glass of water.  Does that goal need to be looked at with in the geneological vision?  Probably not, though it might be interesting to see what would happen if it was.  Take a look at the fictions that we trumpet as exceptional - from films like The Usual Suspects, Magnolia, or this year's Oscar duo Brokeback Mountain and Crash, we see that the plots, alongside the characters, are motivated cyclically, and I'd argue that it is this that makes the works so dynamic and charged.  

I think it is common that we, as players, take for granted our own psychologies and etchings upon the tabula rasa - what appear as simple, linear goals and objectives are often a deep and twisting cyclic mass that we may only partially be able to glimpse; it gives us character, it gives us personality.  As players, however, we are also the objective guiding mind behind the subjective existence of our characters.  While the character might believe that his objective is linear, we as players know - and design it - as something far more convoluted.

Plus, from an OOC standpoint, it's a helluva lot more interesting.

Cheers.