There's so much more...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by David Neuschulz at 2005-04-02 12:50:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

There's so much more that can be said. Your argument was primarily about Operant Conditioning, and even here you left out the Reinforcement Scheduling aspect of it. Of the five schedules (well the last one isn't actually a reinforcement schedule):

(1)fixed interval (after the behavior, every n minutes a reward)
(2)variable interval (after the behavior, random amount of time between rewards)
(3)fixed ratio (every n number of times the behavior occurs, reward is given)
(4)variable ratio (the behavior occurs a random number of times before reward is given)
(5)totally random (no respect to behavior at all)

#4 is the one that elicits the strongest reinforcement with the longest retention. Guess what roleplaying is? Every random number of To Hit rolls, you whack a monster: Variable ratio. Very addicting. Like slot machines.

Beyond operant condition, however, there is the Vygotskian model, which focuses on "socially constructed meaning." So, some of your points about focusing on the game, etc. I would take issue with. So much in roleplaying is social interaction -- it may be social interaction among a group of people who are typically said to "have no social skills," but who, in reality, merely have "alternate" social skills. (Prior article on the "kinds of gamers" on RPGnet was right on the money.)

Personally, I have found that many gamers like to pretend that gaming is this conrete challenge, that there is some empirical value in having an Nth-level character, and inversely, deliberately downplay the social undercurrents that really hold a game group together. I think this is Roleplaying's "Big Lie". IMHO.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Daniel Bayn at 2005-04-02 19:09:52
Converted from Phorums BB System

Very astute, but I did mention Variable Ratio Reinforcement schedules in the article. I didn't go into it in depth 'cuz I didn't wanna get too academic. Oh, and you forgot Continuous Reinforcement, but it's sometimes lumped in with Fixed Ratio. (Psychology's kinda my field and Behaviorism is my thing ;)

I would tend to agree about the social rewards of gaming being overlooked. When I get people together to play Wushu, it's more like a game of Lunch Money than traditional role-playing. There very little in the way of puzzle-solving and tactical combat; we just have fun bullshitting cool fight scenes ;)

L8r, --Dan

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jim Bob at 2005-04-02 22:58:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

It's also "variable ratio" reward in roleplaying, because so often game sessions are pretty crap, but the players keep going back.

If the game's good every time, the players wander off. If it's crap all the time, they wander off. If it's usually crap, but very occasionally good, then they become very loyal to the group and stay.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Daniel Bayn at 2005-04-03 11:21:16
Converted from Phorums BB System

If the game's good every time, the players shouldn't wander off. If it's good all the time, and then sucks two or three times in a row, that's when I'd expect the players to drop like flies. (Continuous Reinforcement produces the most behavior the fastest, but it's least resistant to extinction when rewards are withdrawn.)

--Dan

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jim Bob at 2005-04-03 17:28:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

"If the game's good every time, the players shouldn't wander off."

That's the theory. But remember that as well as the individual rewards dynamic, there's the group dynamic. That is, if half the group fails to show up one week, the other half might not bother showing up the following week; if this happens a couple of times, the group falls apart.

What I've found is that when it's good all the time, players take it for granted. So the classic player types, Mr Super Enthused (Not), Mr Always Late and Unprepared, etc - the game's good, and the GM's reliable and sensible, they take it for granted and assume it'll always be there, even if they miss a session or two or are late.

So they miss a session or two, and are late, and that discourages the other players, and lowers the overall enjoyment of the game sessions. This then produces the individual reward-response you've mentioned about Continuous Reinforcement. And the group goes kaput.

Which is all to say, if the game's good all the time, then one or two lazy shits can destroy the group; whereas if the group is only good some of the time, it's more resilient.