I think the point of restriction of player freedom is purely academic. Of course D&D would kick me against the knee if I don't have fun with solving obstacles - however, if I wouldn't have fun with solving obstacles, I wouldn't play D&D in the first place.

Moreover, a reward system can be pretty flexible. D&D with its many ways of solving obstacles has already been taken as an example.
Riddle of Steel and Shadow of Yesterday where the player can choose about everything as SA/Key and get rewarded for following it would be another fine examples of a flexible reward system.

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.

After second thought, I'd agree on this and expand the "social" in the post above to what you said.

The main point is that the rewarded activity has to be fun because it is fun of itself. House-cleaning doesn't turn into fun immediately just because you get 5 bucks for every room done, and so is it with RPGs.

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.

By all accounts, 3e is more focused & tactical than earlier editions, and it's been criticized both here and elsewhere for that.

OHT, RPGs aren't all about overcoming obstacles. 3e seems to be; earlier editions were somewhat less so. Aside from overcoming obstacles, RPGs are also about "making decisions"--not necessarily in a purely instrumental mode, but simply deciding what's important to you/your character.

If you don't have an "experience system" (as in Traveller) or if character improvement can be cast as  "simulative development" arising out of the internal causality of the game world, then your game is more "existential", "toy-like", (and probably "open" to use Pierce Inverarity's term). You do what you want to do, it has an effect. If you want to achieve a certain effect...if you want to reach a certain goal...the game offers a means to do so, but you need to do it through the simulated dynamics of the in-game reality. If you're not interested in a certain effect/goal, you don't bother.

On the other hand, the more the game's "experience system" or "reward system" is viewed in metagame terms--the more you have the game telling you how to play.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBy all accounts, 3e is more focused & tactical than earlier editions, and it's been criticized both here and elsewhere for that.

OHT, RPGs aren't all about overcoming obstacles. 3e seems to be; earlier editions were somewhat less so. Aside from overcoming obstacles, RPGs are also about "making decisions"--not necessarily in a purely instrumental mode, but simply deciding what's important to you/your character.

If you don't have an "experience system" (as in Traveller) or if character improvement can be cast as  "simulative development" arising out of the internal causality of the game world, then your game is more "existential", "toy-like", (and probably "open" to use Pierce Inverarity's term). You do what you want to do, it has an effect. If you want to achieve a certain effect...if you want to reach a certain goal...the game offers a means to do so, but you need to do it through the simulated dynamics of the in-game reality. If you're not interested in a certain effect/goal, you don't bother.

On the other hand, the more the game's "experience system" or "reward system" is viewed in metagame terms--which the more you have the game telling you how to play.

Nicely put, Elliot. Nicely put.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceNicely put, Elliot. Nicely put.

-clash

I'd agree if i understood a word of it! I really shouldn't play at these theory discussions with the big boys.

Re: Decisions, yep fair enough.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBy all accounts, 3e is more focused & tactical than earlier editions, and it's been criticized both here and elsewhere for that.

You haven't read it?

Quote from: Elliot WilenOHT, RPGs aren't all about overcoming obstacles.

No, actually, that's exactly what they're about. No conflict = no plot.

Seanchai

Quote from: One Horse TownI'd agree if i understood a word of it! I really shouldn't play at these theory discussions with the big boys.

Re: Decisions, yep fair enough.

Mwa? Theory? Anything "Theory" has me running the other way in confusion. This is craft - use of practical tools to make better games.  

-clash

Quote from: SeanchaiYou haven't read it?

Nope, other than skimming a copy from the library and looking at the SRD from time to time. I think I've been forthright about that whenever the topic's come up, but if I've said anything factually wrong, I'd appreciate correction.

QuoteNo, actually, that's exactly what they're about. No conflict = no plot.

See, there's a certain amount of interest (depending on the player) in being able to choose which conflicts you want to engage, and how much relative focus to apply to choosing the conflict vs. resolving or "working it out". If the conflict/obstacle is basically handed to you, and won't change at all in the course of play, it's like a mission: you will succeed or fail, and that's the end of it. On the other hand you might have situations that require you to weigh your utilitarian or "power-oriented" calculations against other values. E.g., you're fighting your way out of a hive of alien bugs, when you realize they've captured a noncombatant whom they're going to subject to unspeakable horrors. It's up to you whether to go back and attempt a rescue, or to continue on your way.

Sure, in D&D you'll probably get more XP if you choose to go back (because you'll do more fighting) but that isn't necessarily the entirety of what you base your decision on.

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

Book 2 has a very, very basic system, but it's not along the normal veins of getting XP and spending it on stuff, more, it simulates things like going back to night school, or starting a new physical fitness regime.  

It even takes 8 years for three of the four options to become permanent, and the physical fitness thing never becomes so.  If you stop the stat improvements reduce immediately.

Quote from: J ArcaneBook 2 has a very, very basic system, but it's not along the normal veins of getting XP and spending it on stuff, more, it simulates things like going back to night school, or starting a new physical fitness regime.  

It even takes 8 years for three of the four options to become permanent, and the physical fitness thing never becomes so.  If you stop the stat improvements reduce immediately.

I don't remember this, but it has been 2 and a half decades since I ran Trav, and I'm perfectly capable of forgetting this.

Thanks, J!

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenSee, there's a certain amount of interest (depending on the player) in being able to choose which conflicts you want to engage, and how much relative focus to apply to choosing the conflict vs. resolving or "working it out".  

And that's so not the point. You said, "RPGs aren't all about overcoming obstacles." Now you're saying that they are about overcoming obstacles, just heming and hawing about which ones, who chooses, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot WilenBy all accounts, 3e is more focused & tactical than earlier editions, and it's been criticized both here and elsewhere for that.

OHT, RPGs aren't all about overcoming obstacles. 3e seems to be; earlier editions were somewhat less so. Aside from overcoming obstacles, RPGs are also about "making decisions"--not necessarily in a purely instrumental mode, but simply deciding what's important to you/your character.

If you don't have an "experience system" (as in Traveller) or if character improvement can be cast as  "simulative development" arising out of the internal causality of the game world, then your game is more "existential", "toy-like", (and probably "open" to use Pierce Inverarity's term). You do what you want to do, it has an effect. If you want to achieve a certain effect...if you want to reach a certain goal...the game offers a means to do so, but you need to do it through the simulated dynamics of the in-game reality. If you're not interested in a certain effect/goal, you don't bother.

On the other hand, the more the game's "experience system" or "reward system" is viewed in metagame terms--the more you have the game telling you how to play.

That's pretty well put.

And, yes, it's dead easy to change the base reward system in D&D - they tell you how right in the book.  But it is a change you have to choose to make, that's all.

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd that's so not the point. You said, "RPGs aren't all about overcoming obstacles." Now you're saying that they are about overcoming obstacles, just heming and hawing about which ones, who chooses, etc..

I'd say that pretty much all RPGs have conflict of some sort.

Gripping conflict, or whatever sort, in a world that the players can buy into...

...That's one of several measures of quality for me.

I much prefer reward systems that award based on overcoming challenges to most any other.  I find arbitrary and "social-based" reward systems particularly unsatisfying.

Do you mean such stuff as "XP for good role-playing"? If yes, then I agree wholeheartedly.

The only exception that I would make are arbitrarily reward systems that reward entertainment value, which is more clearly to define - whoever entertains me most gets the cherry.
I'd like to test a reward system where every participant (GM as players) gets a couple of XP to award on the spot. I didn't find a chance to do so yet. (SW and Epos, which are queued up as next games, have a way to coarse-grained XP system to avoid turning the entertainment reward into the reward that is overshadowing everything else.)

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd that's so not the point. You said, "RPGs aren't all about overcoming obstacles." Now you're saying that they are about overcoming obstacles, just heming and hawing about which ones, who chooses, etc..

Look at the example. Or think about the dungeon scene from Pulp Fiction. Why does Butch go back and save Marcellus Wallace? Is it for the challenge?

Look, if you're only interested in rolling dice & kicking ass, or working out the perfect infiltration plan--you can certainly do those things in an RPG. Basically you just need a few good reasons, like "Orcs are bad", or "Here's your mission, Agent Smith." But that's not the only thing on the menu...if you like, you can also be Yojimbo (or The Man with No Name) striding into town, deciding who you like and who you don't, and then taking action based on your own motivations. That's fun, too.