Quote from: flyingmiceHere'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

Character improvement can also be measured in gear, equipment and the like. Credit rewards that then lead to this type of improvement? CT had loads of goodies you could improve your lot with.

The reward in Traveller was generating credits (usually via trade), which in turn allowed you to accomplish many of the unlocks.

...Like owning your own starship.

Or there was that one where you go to the psi institute to be evaluated for psi potential. I forget which book this was, but it cost 5000 or so, and they would tell you what your psi potential was. (it was like 2d6, but it went down 1 for every 4 years older than 18 your character was).

Then you could pay 100,000 for psionic training or something.

(or, I crossposted with One Horse Town. What he said. I haven't touched Traveller in years..)

By those terms, it would be impossible for any game not to have a reward structure or character advancement. I think that's way too broad for what we are talking about, but I do agree it's a kind of character advancement. Let's call this type of advancement "Unstructured" as opposed to "Structured" advancement, just to keep comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Even games with Structured advancement would also have Unstructured advancement.

-clash

Quote from: One Horse TownThe 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?

Nice, very nice.  And yeah, it's a me too post.  Bu tI didn't want this to get lost in the noise cause it's so insightful.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTo 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.

I wouldn't agree to this. A reward system without a social compenent isn't really a reward system.

Think of leveling in CRPGs. In CRPGs it often turns into a chore where you walk around aimlessly and slaughter random monsters for the only sake of finally being able to get into the tougher areas and moving on to the fun stuff.

In D&D, this stuff runs more in the background. You don't slaughter monsters for the whole sake of slaughtering, you slaughter as the gameplay itself leads you along (which is more fun than the random slaughter farming in CRPGs). You give quite probably positive feedback for especially clever actions which lead the whole party closer to the victory.
On top of the fun battles and the social rewards, you get additionally your mechanical reward, just as a cherry on the cake, and the more you work on quickly dispatching the encounters, the more often you get your social and mechanical rewards.

Of course it all falls apart if no-one cares about monster-slaughtering as a fun activity itself, and the mechanical rewards turn into a chore as in a CRPG.



Your point of "open games vs closed games" is interesting, but I guess reward systems themself are only loosely tied to this phenomenon. Of course a mechanical reward system can do its share to make a game more closed, but to produce a really boardgamy game you would have to do much more designwise.
Think of OD&D - in regards of mechanical rewards, there was little more than killing monsters and grabbing loot. This still didn't stop people to do other stuff as political games, as they still had the option to do so (although the reward system wasn't tied to these other activities).
To really get to a closed game you would have to seriously cripple game options to a more boardgamy set of options - and that is something you could even do without mechanical rewards.

Quote from: flyingmiceBy those terms, it would be impossible for any game not to have a reward structure or character advancement. I think that's way too broad for what we are talking about, but I do agree it's a kind of character advancement. Let's call this type of advancement "Unstructured" as opposed to "Structured" advancement, just to keep comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Even games with Structured advancement would also have Unstructured advancement.

-clash

Yeah, i see what you mean. That's only one of the two parts of the theory though. Perhaps changing it to this: Every reward mechanism that doesn't allow total freedom + character improvement (in some form) is automatically limiting the games utility and thus, its potential audience.

Quote from: flyingmiceBy those terms, it would be impossible for any game not to have a reward structure or character advancement.

Some games eschew simulative "in-game cause" as a method of improving the character's lot, or at least they give it a lot less support. I.e., it's a lot easier to do that kind of stuff if you have money, equipment lists, and rules for building starships. Sorcerer has nothing of the sort.

What you're calling "unstructured" advancement is, I think, basically "simulative development"--changes to the character's situation as a natural consequence of whatever happens in the game, more or less as it's run through the "physics engine" of the mechanics and the way the group handles continuity outside of the mechanics. Viewed this way, D&D's XP are (again) a simulative mechanic. PCs can try to get ahead in life or not, and if they do, they can place a greater or lesser emphasis on XP-hunting. It's far from a perfect simulation, but it's a far cry from game mechanics that offer bennies in a way that a PC could never include in their calculus of utility or morals.

E.g., in Burning Wheel you get Artha for acting on your Beliefs; a player may hunt out opportunities to do so, but this doesn't represent the thought processes of the character very well.

Quote from: SkyrockI wouldn't agree to this. A reward system without a social compenent isn't really a reward system.

Think of leveling in CRPGs. In CRPGs it often turns into a chore where you walk around aimlessly and slaughter random monsters for the only sake of finally being able to get into the tougher areas and moving on to the fun stuff.

In D&D, this stuff runs more in the background. You don't slaughter monsters for the whole sake of slaughtering, you slaughter as the gameplay itself leads you along (which is more fun than the random slaughter farming in CRPGs). You give quite probably positive feedback for especially clever actions which lead the whole party closer to the victory.
On top of the fun battles and the social rewards, you get additionally your mechanical reward, just as a cherry on the cake, and the more you work on qucickly dispatching the encounters, the more often you get your social and mechaincal rewards.

Of course it all falls apart if no-one cares about monster-slaughtering as a fun activity itself, and the mechanical rewards turn into a chore as in a CRPG.



Your point of "open games vs closed games" is interesting, but I guess reward systems themself are only loosely tied to this phenomenon. Of course a mechanical reward system can do its share to make a game more closed, but to produce a really boardgamy game you would have to do much more designwise.
Think of OD&D - in regards of mechanical rewards, there was little more than killing monsters and grabbing loot. This still didn't stop people to do other stuff as political games, as they still had the option to do so (although the reward system wasn't tied to these other activities).
To really get to a closed game you would have to seriously cripple game options to a more boardgamy set of options - and that is something you could even do without mechanical rewards.

Very insightful, Skyrock. The endless scaring up of random opponents to kill in a CRPG in order to level up is hideously tedious. I think I can agree on this linking of social and mechanical awards.

-clash

Quote from: One Horse TownYeah, i see what you mean. That's only one of the two parts of the theory though. Perhaps changing it to this: Every reward mechanism that doesn't allow total freedom + character improvement (in some form) is automatically limiting the games utility and thus, its potential audience.

This I can agree to.

-clash

Skyrock emphasizes "social" far too much. "Intellectual" and "personal" rewards are at least as important. Tedious repetitive action isn't really improved much, if at all, by having other people cheer you on.

Quote from: One Horse TownThe difference is that d&d (and most traditional games) doesn't reward specific types of behaviour over others.

In the most recent edition of D&D, until you start houseruling, you get XP for defeating encounters that have challenge ratings.

That's a pretty specific behaviour.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSkyrock emphasizes "social" far too much. "Intellectual" and "personal" rewards are at least as important. Tedious repetitive action isn't really improved much, if at all, by having other people cheer you on.

I had assumed he meant "in-game" or "in-character" social rewards. If not, then you are correct, Elliot.

-clash

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIn the most recent edition of D&D, until you start houseruling, you get XP for defeating encounters that have challenge ratings.

That's a pretty specific behaviour.

But the type of encounter is up to the GM. It isn't necessarily combat, though that's the most direct option - mainly because the CR is calculated, not assigned ad-hoc. It could be a diplomatic coup, or a scam, or a seduction with a CR. If there are going to be rewards for specific behavior, then the GM is a much better person to judge than the designer. The GM presumably knows his group.

-clash

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIn the most recent edition of D&D, until you start houseruling, you get XP for defeating encounters that have challenge ratings.

That's a pretty specific behaviour.

Well, there's Free-form experience for a start. D&D does not reward the players for any specific behaviour other than overcoming obstacles (whatever they may be), which is pretty much the point of any RPG isn't it? It doesn't care how you do it.

Edit: Removed uneccessary stuff.

Quote from: flyingmiceBut the type of encounter is up to the GM. It isn't necessarily combat, though that's the most direct option - mainly because the CR is calculated, not assigned ad-hoc. It could be a diplomatic coup, or a scam, or a seduction with a CR. If there are going to be rewards for specific behavior, then the GM is a much better person to judge than the designer. The GM presumably knows his group.

-clash

Exactly.  In fact, if you look in the DMG [I don't have it with me at work (why? I don't know, actually), but when I get home for lunch I'll see what I can scare up for support.], there are specific references to assigning CR's to other things, as well as giving out XP in different ways.  There's limited support for it, but when you have so many pages, you focus your effort on what you can.

Now some people have chose that focus to say "See, D&D is all about killing creatures for Rewards - look at how much of the work is focused on it." I always chose to look at D&D as the platform, not the final structure.

In fact, I wonder if anyone has put together a CR system for non-creature encounters/activities.  I bet people would lap it up.