Zing!

And we note that you repeat rather than address my point.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd we note that you repeat rather than address my point.

Correct.

You can have a discussion, or an poop-throwing contest.

State your case like you want a discussion, and you'll get one.

State it like you want to throw poop, and I'll do the same.

I'm far too tired of talking nice to people that want to call me names as we go along.

I summarized your maneouver in one succinct sentence, Levi. And I wasn't doing it for purpose of discussion, either. I was pointing out to the interested reader that what you're selling as an insight actually comes on the tail-end of a debate that has been happening over. And over. And over again. In the past half decade, if not longer.

Making the arguments and outcomes a tad too predictable to have that discussion yet again, and making deer-eyed marveling at one's own sudden revelation a tad unconvincing.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI was pointing out to the interested reader

And yet you addressed me specifically, and did not adress "hey everyone!".

Sure.  I buy that.

At least to me, Levi didn't sound like he tries to sell old wine in new bottles:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat big theory thing that occasionally gets waved about, yammering about rewards?

Seems like a statement that the reward theory is already going around for a while, not someones brandnew revelation from three hours ago.



About what do we actually discuss anyway? Everyone agrees on the importance of rewards, everyone agrees on the age of this discovery.
Nothing left but the everyday biz of aimless Forge bashing and aimless Forge defense. Been there, done that, got nothing but a stupid t-shirt (and I don't want a second one).

Quote from: SkyrockAt least to me, Levi didn't sound like he tries to sell old wine in new bottles:

Seems like a statement that the reward theory is already going around for a while, not someones brandnew revelation from three hours ago.

No.

The statement claims as known fact that "reward games" theory has been around for a while.

It claims as insight that D&D too is a "reward game."

The fact of the matter is that claiming D&D as a "reward game" has been around for a while as well, more often than not as sub-claim of the "reward game" theory--and linked up with the further sub-claim that a certain kind of game at long last made playstyles rewarding that D&D could never satisfy.

QuoteNothing left but the everyday biz of aimless Forge bashing and aimless Forge defense. Been there, done that, got nothing but a stupid t-shirt (and I don't want a second one).

Quite so. But it doesn't hurt to contextualize an argument properly that might be mistaken as original or disinterested.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe statement claims as known fact that "reward games" theory has been around for a while.

It claims as insight that D&D too is a "reward game."

Can somebody let me in on what a "reward game" is?

I mean ... I'm pretty up on the theory of reward mechanics, and I ain't never heard this term bandied about before.  Since it seems so central to the sudden controversy, I'm feeling like I've missed something crucial.

Quote from: RPGPunditLevi isn't pissing on D&D. This is yet another of his attempts to find "common ground" between the Theory Swine and regular roleplayers.

RPGPundit

mmmkay.  Even if this were the goal, why wouldn't it be commendable?

Oh yeah.  I forgot.  It's "us"-versus-"them", in a bitter cage match.

-O

Quote from: TonyLBCan somebody let me in on what a "reward game" is?

I'm not actually sure, though it sounds from context like Pierce thinks it's derogatory.  Something on the lines of "Monty Haul Hack & Slash" would be my guess.

As I suggested earlier the XP system in D&D doesn't necessarily operate as a very strong incentive or reward. It really depends on the group: do the players crave more power and more things to kill? Does the GM always up the challenges so the PC's are always on the cusp of gaining mastery over the setting? Then giving them XP will reward them. But D&D offers so many other potentially rewarding things to do that XP can recede into the background even if you award them straight out of the book. XP can then operate more or less as an simulative mechanic--in short, representing "experience".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm not actually sure, though it sounds from context like Pierce thinks it's derogatory.  Something on the lines of "Monty Haul Hack & Slash" would be my guess.

Alrighty, why don't I explain to people what you two already know but sadly can't remember right now?

Let me tell you what's on your mind: Rewards are mechanical or they are not.

To wit, according to you: An RPG cannot be rewarding, or will be infinitely less rewarding, unless rewards are hard-wired into its mechanics.

Unless, that is to say (still according to you), the designer proscribes specific kinds of actions to the players by exclusively rewarding specific kinds of actions, resulting, he thinks, in a specific kind of fun. Carrot-and-stick fun that strikes some of us as equally crude, limiting and imperious.

A "reward game," in my intuitive coinage that sadly escaped you, is a game built on that assumption. Or else, in the case of D&D, it is a game misread by you as having been built on it.

D&D and a crapload of other games were and are open games, a la Umberto Eco's open work of art, which is what I told you months ago, turtle. And you want a closed game.

But I wasn't going to rehash that old story. I was pointing out how Levi is selling it as this innocently self-evident thing he just discovered.

I have nothing more to add save that for the longest time now I've been wanting to call you phony, Tony.

Phony Tony, Phony Tony...

So, World of Warcraft is a "reward game"?

World of Warcraft operates on a similar set of rewards on many levels as D&D.

It's not just "killing things makes you power up so you can kill more things".

It's the unlocking part that always gets ignored. In World of Warcraft you unlock new abilities and you're able to dress your character up in cooler ways. Also, you are suddenly able to visit areas that are too dangerous for lower level characters.

So your character might start out fighting kobolds or scorpions or whatever, but eventually you work your way up to battling demons and dragons, and the battles are more complex, and involve more complex strategies (kiting, for example, or the 'running ambush'). There's also movement involved- you have to actually explore new areas to figure out where the appropriate battles are.

And finally there's this: The majority of World of Warcraft experience is actually awarded for quests, not monsters Some of the quests involve killing monsters, and some of the monsters naturally attack you while you are trying to accomplish your quests. But the real motivator is the quest itself.

Not to mention this: experience is always granted for quests (until you lose the ability to level up any higher), but often there's gold and unique items as well. These are also rewards.

Why is gold a reward? Gold is build points. You use gold to buy items to increase your abilities or to make your character more unique (maybe buy crafting materials or whatever).

However, I kinda agree with Pierce that there is some falseness here. The forgies go on and on about reward cycles and they have been doing this for years. D&D is usually only silently acknowledged, or being pointed out as "getting it wrong". Reward cycles have been redefined as this nebulous thing about validating other peoples input at the table or something. A typical way forgie reward cycles get codified is in a variety of "alternate experience systems" (ironically, usually written for D&D) which all kinda suck.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, the next time I hear someone call the whole "rewards thing" a flakey piece of theory garble, I may feel the need to ask them if they don't like D&D.

Just, so y'all know.

The difference is that d&d (and most traditional games) doesn't reward specific types of behaviour over others. It rewards you for playing the game. You can do that any way you like. It does not enforce specific behaviour on the players like gaining bennies for playing disadvantages or passions or having such a narrow focus that a smallish set of rewards are given for a smallish set of actions. Alignment is perhaps the only part that spoils the party a bit and you don't really get rewards for playing to that, just maintaining the status quo and getting access to alignment based spells. Yet, still you don't generally get rewards for this. Again, you are rewarded for playing the game. Not for performing certain actions. Total freedom.

Being rewarded for just playing the game then leads into the next great feature, which is constant character improvement. Total freedom + constant improvement = the win. Theory: Every reward mechanism that does not allow total freedom + constant improvement is automatically limiting the games utility and thus, its potential audience?

Quote from: One Horse TownBeing rewarded for just playing the game then leads into the next great feature, which is constant character improvement. Total freedom + constant improvement = the win. Theory: Every reward mechanism that does not allow total freedom + constant improvement is automatically limiting the games utility and thus, its potential audience?

Here's one. Classic Traveller. Rather well known game. No character improvement at all, or else it may have been tacked on later - I  have a bunch of the LBBs, but not nearly all.

-clash