TheRPGSite

You heard me.

That big theory thing that occasionally gets waved about, yammering about rewards?

D&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

At base, you find the challenging encounter.  You kick it's ever-lovin' ass.  You get the Xp and the loot.  You use those to become more proficient at...

What's that?  Kicking ass?  

That's the stuff.

Not only that, but in D&D, you become more proficient in kicking ass in a way that is unique and differentiated to suit you - meaning that while we're all in the same rat race, we're doing it in in different ways, which means that we don't feel like we're stepping on each other's toes, but instead encourage us to work together.

So, 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.

Yup.  And that's just part of why I adore the game so much.

D&D is awesome.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenD&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

Abso-frickin'-lutely. :win:

It taps into a cycle that's omnipresent in the literature of its genre:  the apprentice warrior who proves his worth by defeating progressively larger enemies, until he is so far from being an "apprentice" that one can barely remember the hazy beginnings of his ass-kicking quest.

Part of D&D's brilliance is how it ties that all up in a nice, tightly wound package that anyone at all can immediately grasp.

I've always thought that Levels are, in fact, a big part of that.  If you say to somebody "Well, if you defeat the next thousand monsters, you'll have advanced all the way to godhood" (or the like) ... well, that's a long way away, and hard to grasp.  But if you say "If you defeat these two goblins then you'll finally advance to second level, and you'll roll a whole new d8 to add to your hit points!  You'll be well-nigh indestructible!", that's an immediate goal that they can understand in the context of what they're doing today.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenD&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

Doubleplusagree.

D&D has a really great cycle of kicking ass => improving => even more serious ass-kicking => even more improvement => Chuck Norris etc.

I try really hard to accomplish the same flow with my current homebrew project, although its difficult to have a constant flow throughout the game session if you have a more mission-based and less encounter-based structure.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou heard me.

That big theory thing that occasionally gets waved about, yammering about rewards?

D&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

At base, you find the challenging encounter.  You kick it's ever-lovin' ass.  You get the Xp and the loot.  You use those to become more proficient at...

What's that?  Kicking ass?  

That's the stuff.

Not only that, but in D&D, you become more proficient in kicking ass in a way that is unique and differentiated to suit you - meaning that while we're all in the same rat race, we're doing it in in different ways, which means that we don't feel like we're stepping on each other's toes, but instead encourage us to work together.

So, 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.

I think the whole rewards thing is a flakey piece of theory garble, and I don't care for D&D. I don't like designers telling me how I should play a game, so the first thing I usually do with games not my own is rip out the set reward mechanisms and replace them with ones depending on showing up or on periodicity. If it's too difficult to do that I toss them into the circular file. That's one of the things I love most about Pundit's FTA! - you advance in level by adventures completed.

Just so's we're clear on where we all stand.

-clash

And I would only add that I hope kicking ass is used only figuratively in this thread.

Cause, ya know, some sensitive D&D player might get the feeling you're implying hack n' slash/munchkinism is the only point to D&D.  Ya know, that you only roll-play not role-play.

But, I know Levi wouldn't mean that.  He's to nice a guy.  And I'm sure he knows you can play games of court intrigue or mystery with D&D just as well.

So before this blows up into a war, I thought I'd make sure we're all on the same page.

Quote from: James J SkachBut, I know Levi wouldn't mean that.  He's to nice a guy.  And I'm sure he knows you can play games of court intrigue or mystery with D&D just as well.

'Course you can.  But when you do, the system doesn't have your back as much...

...Unless you, oh, say, use one of the thousand-odd different ways of adjusting rewards to suit that are described all over the place in D&D books.

Quote from: flyingmiceI think the whole rewards thing is a flakey piece of theory garble, and I don't care for D&D. I don't like designers telling me how I should play a game,

Really?  Interesting.

I like it when designers try to help my group point itself at what they consider the fun stuff.

THat's quite a difference of perspective, innit?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenReally?  Interesting.

I like it when designers try to help my group point itself at what they consider the fun stuff.

THat's quite a difference of perspective, innit?

Yep! There's no disputing matters of taste. Doesn't mean D&D isn't good, just means it's not good for me. :P

-clash

You guys are doing this all wrong.  One of you has to claim the the way D&D does reward systems, the fact that it's the most popular game in the world, proves that reward systems done the way D&D does it is inherently the right and proper way to design a game and anything else is wrong and/or not really an RPG.

I mean, all this agreeing to disagree on matters of taste.  Where will that get us?

Clash - do you have anything that could even be considered a reward system in your games? Just curious given your original "rewards systems are stupid" perspective...

Quote from: James J SkachYou guys are doing this all wrong.  One of you has to claim the the way D&D does reward systems, the fact that it's the most popular game in the world, proves that reward systems done the way D&D does it is inherently the right and proper way to design a game and anything else is wrong and/or not really an RPG.

I mean, all this agreeing to disagree on matters of taste.  Where will that get us?

If you ever meet someone less likely to get into that argument than Levi and I, let me know... :D

-clash

I like D&D, but I like other games more.

IMO, D&D's reward system is one the best. I can respect D&D for the fact that it makes no attempt to cover the fact that the more ass you kick the more powerful you get and then you can kick even more ass....ect...

I'd also like to point out that D&D also suggests rewards for things other than kicking as aswell. It seems to get missed pretty often.

Yeah, the D&D reward system more often used as a point system of sorts, not unlike video gamse of the 80's, but that is most of the time as a result of the play style the group playing likes.

Quote from: James J SkachClash - do you have anything that could even be considered a reward system in your games? Just curious given your original "rewards systems are stupid" perspective...

In all my games, your character is rewarded only by surviving. Every in-game year - or every in-game half-year, depending on the game - the character gets to improve a skill or get a new one. Character advancement is identical to Character Generation, so you can play a character for a couple years, then advance him two more, then play some more, etc. You can also reconstitute a character at any arbitrary point in the past by reversing the advancement. Say you start a character at 35 years old, play him for a couple years, then decide to go back to the time he was 12, play an flashback adventure, then advance him to 22, then back up to 38. It's wierd, but it works.

-clash

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou heard me.

That big theory thing that occasionally gets waved about, yammering about rewards?

D&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

At base, you find the challenging encounter.  You kick it's ever-lovin' ass.  You get the Xp and the loot.  You use those to become more proficient at...

What's that?  Kicking ass?  

That's the stuff.

Not only that, but in D&D, you become more proficient in kicking ass in a way that is unique and differentiated to suit you - meaning that while we're all in the same rat race, we're doing it in in different ways, which means that we don't feel like we're stepping on each other's toes, but instead encourage us to work together.

So, 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.

There's a second layer on top of that as well:

Levelling up unlocks more interesting adversaries, which is a reward in itself. You start out battling goblins. You end up battling demons and bizarre creatures out of nightmares. There's a progression. The battles become more complex and difficult to master. But they also become more (what?) rewarding.

But I think you miss the point: there is actually a hell of a lot of flakey theory garble regarding rewards. Because they'll eventually change the term to mean "social validation" or something similar.

Another nice reward system is the standard Palladium one that is in every game from TMNT to Rifts.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenReally?  Interesting.

I like it when designers try to help my group point itself at what they consider the fun stuff.

THat's quite a difference of perspective, innit?

I'm halfway between you and Clash.  I consider some but not all of the rewards thing a flakey piece of theory garble.  I like D&D and have fun with it even if I'm not tracking XP -- which is most of the time I run it as a home game.  And I don't really care if the designers try to help my group point itself at what they consider the fun stuff.  Because what I care about is what *I* consider the fun stuff.  Now maybe I'll pick up some cool ideas from the designer and maybe I won't -- so I might get something of value from their pointers, but then again I might not.  Historically, not so much -- typically I read the basic game concept then get some pretty strong ideas of my own about what I want to do with the game.  Typically about 20% of my initial ideas make it into actual gameplay but as the play group comes together we find other cool things to do along the way.  

As I pointed out over on that thread on GameCraft, I think the presumption that mechanical rewards work for all players is the root of most of the flakiness in the theory garble.  One size doesn't fit all.  Mechanical rewards work great for some players.  That's the value in the theory garble -- and for those players, the value is solid.  Mechanical rewards fall flat for other players -- and that's where the theory garble falls down.  Because the theory claims that mechanical rewards work great for all players.  Which ain't true.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen'Course you can.  But when you do, the system doesn't have your back as much...

...Unless you, oh, say, use one of the thousand-odd different ways of adjusting rewards to suit that are described all over the place in D&D books.

Or just the stuff out of the DMG...

Seanchai

I've noticed or felt a slightly different thing about D&D, though that may be because I don't quite get it. Also, mind, my D&D experience ends with AD&D 1e.

I see the benefit of going up levels not as "being able to kick more ass" but as "gaining freedom of action". Once you've got a few levels under your belt, you don't have to worry quite so much about getting stomped if you make a bad move, and you can do other stuff as suits your fancy.

As the game progresses, "other stuff" takes up a greater & greater percentage of your attention, until by name level you're a mover & shaker in the world. (Thing is, we never got that far, so this last bit is just speculation.)

So if you don't enjoy kicking ass, why use the D&D XP system? Well, if you don't enjoy it at all, you shouldn't. But I see the dungeoncrawl as a sort of apprenticeship. It's a highly focused situation so you don't waste time wondering what to do. It's high-impact mechanically so you get a good grasp of the "physics of the world". And it puts all the PCs together working toward a goal so the players get to know each other well through the masks of their characters, developing the fictional relationships and patterns of interaction that will carry over as the campaign continues.

All that said, the baseline mechanical reward spiral is perfectly tailored for a style of play that emphasizes fighting. This is why I think that even if D&D didn't own the market, the market leader or leaders would still look a lot like D&D.

(Though maybe not so much for thieves? I remember thinking the standard system was a little dorked for that class. Though jrients straightened me out about that a while back--because I'd deemphasized the role of treasure in 1e XP. Restore the "and take their stuff" to the mechanical reward system, and thieves are fine.)

Quote from: Lee ShortI'm halfway between you and Clash.  I consider some but not all of the rewards thing a flakey piece of theory garble.  I like D&D and have fun with it even if I'm not tracking XP -- which is most of the time I run it as a home game.  And I don't really care if the designers try to help my group point itself at what they consider the fun stuff.  Because what I care about is what *I* consider the fun stuff.  Now maybe I'll pick up some cool ideas from the designer and maybe I won't -- so I might get something of value from their pointers, but then again I might not.  Historically, not so much -- typically I read the basic game concept then get some pretty strong ideas of my own about what I want to do with the game.  Typically about 20% of my initial ideas make it into actual gameplay but as the play group comes together we find other cool things to do along the way.  

As I pointed out over on that thread on GameCraft, I think the presumption that mechanical rewards work for all players is the root of most of the flakiness in the theory garble.  One size doesn't fit all.  Mechanical rewards work great for some players.  That's the value in the theory garble -- and for those players, the value is solid.  Mechanical rewards fall flat for other players -- and that's where the theory garble falls down.  Because the theory claims that mechanical rewards work great for all players.  Which ain't true.

An excellent point, Lee, and one I agree with entirely. I also think the main difference between your position and mine is I am a bomb-throwing anarchist.

Whenever I hear the term "Reward System" I think of Pavlov's Dogs and Skinner's Rats, and it makes me angry.

:D

-clash

Unfortuantly the fact is that in D&D once you kill that goblin and get that extra d8 there'll just be two goblins, or a gnoll, or a dragon.  So really you never do get to kick more ass.  In earlier versions you don't even get to do more damage as you go up levels.

Quote from: SeanchaiOr just the stuff out of the DMG...

Seanchai

exactly my point. :haw:

What you're talking about that you're calling "rewards systems" in D&D, getting XP and going up in level (which you unfortunately decided to cast in as hack-n-slash a light as possible, as if that was the only way to gain XP or go up in level), is most certainly not "flakey Theory crap".

Its not Theory crap at all.

If some motherfucker over at the Forge decided to try to pretend that the idea of GETTING XP AND LEVELLING is somehow a brilliant radical new idea that no one had ever thought of before and that certainly hasn't been used ever since the very first RPGs, gave it a fancy academic-sounding name (the "Rewards cycle") and then tried to claim that games that have xp and levelling, games like D&D, games that existed long before the Forge was even an idea staining Ron Edward's sheets at night, are somehow being "inspired" by Theory in having this stuff, that's no skin off my back, but clearly said motherfucker, and others who try to back up his claims, are clearly messed up in the head and probably need to be fucking put down as a waste of oxygen.

I mean holy fuck, what will they take credit for next?! Polyhedral dice? The "Warrior"? Dungeons? Were all of these things secretly invented by Ron Edwards now???

Fucking useless cunts.

RPGPundit

Ummm..I don't recall anyone claiming the Forgeries thought up reward systems or gaining XP and levelling up. Does anyone else?

So stuff a fucking sock in it - jesus christ.

In fact, if you took your head out of your ass long enough to realize what's going on, you'll see that Levi is saying that D&D is awesome at this aspect of gaming. You might even go so far as to say Levi is saying if theory wonks want to learn about Reward Systems they should be looking at D&D as a perfect example.

Unless, of course, you think Levi is just setting us all up to be tricked into liking theory. He is clever.

Pundit:  I think you've misunderstood what Levi said.

Nobody is claiming that the term "reward mechanic" predates the actuality of the reward mechanics.  It's a term that talks about the reality of what roleplaying games are, and (hopefully) sparks ideas about what they could be in future.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat you're talking about [...] is most certainly not "flakey Theory crap".

Its not Theory crap at all.

The true parts of your post live here, chief.

I've seen Theory folk wank rhapsodic about Reward Systems, certainly, but I don't think I've ever seen even the craziest fucker from Forge-ways suggest they invented the shit.


If you're going to fight your war, P-dog, it might help to brush up on the opposition. Makes you look like less, you know, like a crazy dipshit.


I wasn't trying to pile on here, I typed slow.

What matters is that the players see themselves getting something out of it.

In Rolemaster I hand out the XP at the start of the next session, game show style, from lowest reward to highest.

Rolemaster has the best experience point system ever!  I know many people find it a lot of cludgy book work but it rewards you for what you actually do and doesn't fall into the trap of handwaved rewards, uniform group rewards, or rewards that don't scale down as things become routine.

Most importantly, it rewards players for trying new things.  They pick up new skills just for the chance to use them.  Think cooking or sewing's a waste of points?  Heck no, you can be building experience at the castle, in the cottage, and on the road while the other guys are still just waiting for something to kill.

One day I will buy D&D from WotC and ICE from that other guy and the new edition of D&D will be Rolemaster...Mwaahhahahahahahahahahaha!

No-one says that the Forgies invented reward systems - that would be so outright absurd that even the craziest crackpot wouldn't consider that.

However, they pointed that out and highlighted the fact that a.) rewards should be used to encourage the stuff that is fun and b.) rewards should be of a kind that furthers the fun stuff.
It may sound like a trivial commonplace, but it is a true trivial commonplace that can actually be of use for further designs. It beats the usefulness of GNS by several billion times ;)

And if you look at all those "XP per adventure"-crap like the WW stuff that's sprawling everywhere, it's a trivial commonplace that can't be told often enough.

I just realized that the IHW series has a sort of reward mechanism, though it's not linked to character skill advancement, and it's not intended to reinforce playstyle, but to simulate genre. The Interest/Notice system of promotion simulates the quasi-meritocracy of military rank advancement, but it can also be seen as a reward for play similar to KTATTS. The gains are social and military rank, though, not personal improvement.  

-clash

Quote from: SkyrockIt beats the usefulness of GNS by several billion times ;)

And a billion times zero is... ? :D

That's my personal usefulness, of course. Other people find real value in it.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd a billion times zero is... ? :D

Don't be so harsh.

"Look, there are three different styles of gaming. At least. And they look so and so, although we don't know how to keep them apart exactly, and we have absolutely no clue how we should deal with mixtures.
After these breaking news, let's get down to the interesting stuff again."

I'd award at least a 0,0137 for this shocking revelation (0,0136 of the points for "makes a nice topic for drunken chit-chat where no hard results are expected", 0,0001 for "improve my actual gaming").

Honestly, I figured out all this crap a long time ago in my Psych courses, without needing to read any theory to figure it out.

With that said, it's good theory because it's quite obviously true.

If you set up a system in which players are rewarded for rescuing princesses, they will go on many rescue-the-princess quests.  If they're rewarded for humor, they will (try to) be funny.  If the rewards are given for killing stuff, they will look for stuff to kill.  It's not rocket science; it's pure operant conditioning.

-O

Quote from: obrynHonestly, I figured out all this crap a long time ago in my Psych courses, without needing to read any theory to figure it out.

With that said, it's good theory because it's quite obviously true.

If you set up a system in which players are rewarded for rescuing princesses, they will go on many rescue-the-princess quests.  If they're rewarded for humor, they will (try to) be funny.  If the rewards are given for killing stuff, they will look for stuff to kill.  It's not rocket science; it's pure operant conditioning.

-O

Sure. I agree absolutely, as do pavlov's dogs. Woof! :D

-clash

Two things to think about:

1. Rewards have to be something the players actually value.
2. If you're mechanically rewarding something people would enjoy doing anyway...what's the point?

Quote from: Elliot WilenTwo things to think about:

1. Rewards have to be something the players actually value.
2. If you're mechanically rewarding something people would enjoy doing anyway...what's the point?

Using (loose) operant terminology, "enjoyment" is a primary reward.  XP and whatnot are secondary rewards - they can be 'cashed in' or whatever for increased enjoyment.

A GM can use rewards in one of two chief ways...  (1) Encourage behavior a player would otherwise not engage in, or (2) encourage behavior a player engages in already.

Reward systems steer games in the rewarded directions, and if those are also enjoyable, it will encourage them all the more.

-O

Quote from: TonyLBPundit:  I think you've misunderstood what Levi said.

Nobody is claiming that the term "reward mechanic" predates the actuality of the reward mechanics.  It's a term that talks about the reality of what roleplaying games are, and (hopefully) sparks ideas about what they could be in future.

Should people base Theory off of what actually works (ie. D&D)? Of course, that's what I've been saying for a long while.

But this thread seems like an ass-backward way of looking at it, saying that D&D  is a good example of one of the Forge's terms being correct, when my point is that this is just something the Forge is claiming originality for that every normal gamer in the world has already known, without needing Forge Theory to explain it to them, for the last 30 years.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SkyrockNo-one says that the Forgies invented reward systems - that would be so outright absurd that even the craziest crackpot wouldn't consider that.

However, they pointed that out and highlighted the fact that a.) rewards should be used to encourage the stuff that is fun and b.) rewards should be of a kind that furthers the fun stuff.
It may sound like a trivial commonplace, but it is a true trivial commonplace that can actually be of use for further designs. It beats the usefulness of GNS by several billion times ;)

Yes, but everyone already knows this. And it doesn't explain why people then turn around and piss all over the very games that have done this all along.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBut this thread seems like an ass-backward way of looking at it, saying that D&D  is a good example of one of the Forge's terms being correct, when my point is that this is just something the Forge is claiming originality for that every normal gamer in the world has already known, without needing Forge Theory to explain it to them, for the last 30 years.

Well, then don't look at it as "Forge Theory."  You can look at it as game theory, or as I did, like operant conditioning.

A very real and sometimes important part of theory is (a) collecting all the existing evidence, (b) filtering out what works, (c) trying to look for common themes, and (d) stating it concisely.

Then, when you're designing your own game, you or someone else can take a look at this summary, and use or ignore it as you/they wish.

It's probably more correct to look at it like Levi did.  "Hey, D&D seems to have a really good reward system.  I think it's because of X, Y, and Z!  Wow, people really shouldn't ignore this when they're making their own games!"

-O

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but everyone already knows this. And it doesn't explain why people then turn around and piss all over the very games that have done this all along.

RPGPundit

I must have missed the part where Levi was pissing on D&D in his post.  It must have been between the lines where he's talking about how its reward system  kicks ass.

:confused:

-O

So here's the thing, I'm a big believer in story rewards for accomplishing story goals and mechanical goals for mechanical accomplishments.  That is to say you won't get any XP for rescuing the princess but if you play your cards right you might step into the nobility overnight or being rewarded as richly as only a king can or even just get laid.  But you won't get XP for it.  For every thing you did to rescue her yes but not for the rescue itself.

So, XP for travel, XP for combat, XP for spell casting, XP for skill use, XP for ideas, but no XP for mission completion.  Also, no XP for gold unless you spent it on training.

Really I've never understood Gary Gygax, here he's got 1000 to 4000 gp per level but he's also giving you XP for the GP.  Then there's a page and a half on the importance of keeping the players poor.  It's just weird that it got two different rules when one would have worked better for the whole mess.

Quote from: obrynI must have missed the part where Levi was pissing on D&D in his post.  It must have been between the lines where he's talking about how its reward system  kicks ass.

:confused:

-O

Levi 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

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.

Not...   exactly.

If I have a dark agenda here, this is self-validation.  When I design "light" games these days, they tend to be almost wholly centered around incentive-based stuff.  And people try to tell me that it's a "new wave" practice, doing that.

While, to me, I'm just designing new "rules-light" gamestuff based on the oldest stuff running around in games.  As it happens, the rules I think are important to keep when going "light" aren't the same ones that others do, but they aren't new and alien ideas.

Quote from: flyingmiceit's not intended to reinforce playstyle, but to simulate genre.

"Simulating genre" is totally part of many playstyles.

(To be extra clear - for the record, I'm not talking about 'theory type' playstyles here.  Just, y'know, different styles of play, in a loosely generic way, as I usually do).

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNot...   exactly.

If I have a dark agenda here, this is self-validation.  When I design "light" games these days, they tend to be almost wholly centered around incentive-based stuff.  And people try to tell me that it's a "new wave" practice, doing that.

While, to me, I'm just designing new "rules-light" gamestuff based on the oldest stuff running around in games.  As it happens, the rules I think are important to keep when going "light" aren't the same ones that others do, but they aren't new and alien ideas.

What's new and alien is a re-writing of the past, such that games which give rewards for combat must therefore be combat games seeing as games can't be rewarding beyond the rules for rewards.

Only it's not new and alien: it's a well-known Forge saw that's getting about as old as your folksiness shtick, turtle.

Quote from: SeanchaiOr just the stuff out of the DMG...

Seanchai

Yep.  

Also, the (non-Monte) Arcana book had some cool stuff here.  And Oriental Adventures had some interesting ideas about "the problem of looting" in a culture where being ceremonially unclean actually matters.  And...

Well, there's lots.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat's new and alien is a re-writing of the past, such that games which give rewards for combat must therefore be combat games seeing as games can't be rewarding beyond the rules for rewards.

Only it's not new and alien: it's a well-known Forge saw that's getting about as old as your folksiness shtick, turtle.

*Tries to untangle that*

So, your accusation is, that by enjoying how combat rewards work in D&D, I'm saying that D&D is therefore a "combat game".  You're also saying that by doing so, I'm rewriting the past.

Oh, and you don't like me being 'folksy', and want to associate me with the Forge.

....I think I've got all that.

Okay, then, without the folksyness:

I wasn't drawing you a rorschach test for you to project your shit onto, asshole.

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

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.

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! :D 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! :D 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. :D

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.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLook 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.

No, because, as Jimbob would tell us: Yojimbo is the penultimate Loner Badarse, and that's all badwrongfun...;)

I'm a devoted follower of the spaghetti western school of roleplaying.

Butch went back to save Marcellus because he was pissed.

I see that happen in D&D all the time though.

In my current weekly group, the players left the main campaign plotline-- completely derailed it in fact-- in order to kill the dragon that had laid waste to one of the PCs hometowns. It was a great twist and completely unexpected. They were trying to decide what to do next, and one of the players said "You know, that dragon really pissed me off. You guys want to go back and kill it? I know it's kinda out of the way..."

And everyone said hell yeah, and they got all loaded up on dragonbane arrows and ass-whupping juice and did the thing. Purely for spite.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLook 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.

Elliot, I love ya.  So I won't harp too much on your use of the word "only."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenD&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

At base, you find the challenging encounter.  You kick it's ever-lovin' ass.  You get the Xp and the loot.  

Yep. For a lot of my players kicking ass = interesting roleplaying with NPCs. Kicking ass means outsmarting an adversary in the king's court. It means rallying the people to your cause, it means figuring out the riddle of the mummy.

By kicking ass like this, my players get rewarded with XP (and sometimes loot).

It's pretty intuitive for me.

I don't know if the DMG specifically mentions it or if it is "technically" a spelled-out part of the game, but I know that's how it works for me, intuitively.

I don't get those people who have problems with the D&D reward system - I don't quite see where they are coming from. If a player does something good, they get a reward. Simple.

Quote from: GoOrangeI don't get those people who have problems with the D&D reward system - I don't quite see where they are coming from. If a player does something good, they get a reward. Simple.

That's simple, and works fine. It's when designers attempt to tell me what my ropleplaying goals should be that I get testy. They do this by saying "If you entertain the other players, you get a reward." or "If you use the character's drives and passions, you get a reward." If you don't hew to the designer's idea of what's important, your character falls behind and become a drag on the other PCs. I prefer that if actions are to be rewarded, the definitions of what actions are rewarded should be determined by the group itself or the GM. Actually, ideally, I think good play should be its own reward, and character advancement should be something truly neutraal, like showing up and participating.

-clash

Added: Actually, I have no big problem with the D&D reward system, as it's fairly neutral, and the GM/Group can define it. My problems with D&D are unrelated to the reward system, and are purely matters of taste.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLook 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?

Because of internal conflict.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut that's not the only thing on the menu...

I'm not sure why you feel this has anything to do with hack 'n' slash or that folks are suggesting that "rolling dice & kicking ass, or working out the perfect infiltration plan" is the only thing on the menu.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen...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.

And what motivates him to act at all? Why is he walking down the street? Why is he making these sorts of decisions? Answer: Conflict.

Seanchai

I don't think "internal conflict" is the right word for why Butch does what he does. When Butch thinks about leaving or going back, that's an internal conflict. When he decides to go back, that resolves the internal conflict.

The reason he decides to go back, is that he decides the dungeon crew is evil far beyond the human conflict between him and Marcellus. He'd been ready to kill Marcellus before (and vice versa) but their experience in the dungeon reset all that.

If you're playing Butch in an RPG, you can decide that. Or you can smirk and grimly decide to leave Marcellus to his fate.

The point here is that I enjoy having that power or freedom: to decide what to do, and what it's worth risking to do it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't think "internal conflict" is the right word for why Butch does what he does. When Butch thinks about leaving or going back, that's an internal conflict. When he decides to go back, that resolves the internal conflict.

The confict was still there, regardless.

Conflict is at the heart of almost any action worth describing in an RPG - even if it's just the planning and shopping phases of preparation for a dungeon-crawl, it occurs because there is conflict of some kind.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe confict was still there, regardless.

Conflict is at the heart of almost any action worth describing in an RPG - even if it's just the planning and shopping phases of preparation for a dungeon-crawl, it occurs because there is conflict of some kind.

Conflict of any kind is the core of any interesting fiction period, whether it's an RPG session, a TV show, a book, or a movie.  

That's just kinda basic lit class stuff there really, I'm surprised it's being argued against with such determination.

It is not being argued against, certainly not by me. What I'm arguing against is the idea that RPGs are all about overcoming obstacles. The person who originally uttered that claim in the thread agrees with me, but somehow Seanchai disagrees.

If some sort of verbal gymnastics gets the reader to "dealing with internal conflict is a kind of 'overcoming obstacles'", then I'm done.

If not, my counterexample is that I hate it when the GM assumes I'm going to give a damn about whatever problem or mystery he throws out, just because that's "the adventure". I'm also not too keen on the idea of "hook the PC by kidnapping his dependent" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6267&highlight=niece). And these aren't merely cosmetic issues of the GM being unimaginative. Rather it's the fact that I'm not being given a chance to make decisions outside a fairly low-level, instrumental, tactical domain. I'm at least as interested in making strategic decisions and "value" decisions. IMO, having those decisions without a counterpoint of challenge is kind of fatuous (a game of "value" decisions without consequence is a dressed up form of Scruples), but to leave them out altogether is to miss out on one of the main attractions of RPGs, for me at least.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe point here is that I enjoy having that power or freedom: to decide what to do, and what it's worth risking to do it.

That might be your point, but it's not the topic at hand. We're not discussing taking freedoms away from players. We're talking about reward systems and, in one corner, whether or not all games have obstacles/conflict.

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf some sort of verbal gymnastics gets the reader to "dealing with internal conflict is a kind of 'overcoming obstacles'", then I'm done.

A conflict is a difference between reality and desire. I want a donut. There are no donuts in the house. Conflict. I don't want to die. People are shooting at me. Conflict.

It seems to me that an obstacle is essentially a conflict.

When there's no conflict, there's no action or additional action. I want a donut. I am a eating donut. I don't have to do anything. I don't want to die. I'm in no danger of dying from anything in the environment. I can comfortably sit on my fat ass.

Thus if characters are in motion - physically, verbally, internally - there's a reason for it. They want to close the difference between reality and desire. There's conflict.

Seanchai

Quote from: J ArcaneConflict of any kind is the core of any interesting fiction period, whether it's an RPG session, a TV show, a book, or a movie.

Not conflict, tension.

Things like spilling soda on your date, or wondering if your bodyguard is about to betray you.

And come to think of it, all the reward systems I like build tension in some way, like D&D's HP and CoC's Sanity, as opposed to resolve conflict or increase status.

Quote from: SeanchaiThat might be your point, but it's not the topic at hand. We're not discussing taking freedoms away from players. We're talking about reward systems and, in one corner, whether or not all games have obstacles/conflict.

Really?

The question that's dominated this thread is the benefit of seeing D&D's system of giving XP for overcoming obstacles as a "reward system" that guides play.

My argument, via the back & forth between OHT and Levi, is that:

a) If you apply that notion to older versions of D&D, you incorrectly reach the reductionist conclusion that the game is "all about overcoming obstacles".

b) If the notion is strongly reinforced in 3.x, then the game is certainly more focused, but frankly of less interest to me (and I believe I'm not alone) because I don't play RPGs just to "overcome obstacles". At least, not always.

The idea that RPGs are all about overcoming obstacles, being "rewarded" by leveling up, and then facing greater obstacles is found in some styles of play, but not all. Basically, when you have a group that focuses strongly on character builds for maximum efficiency in combat, and then reinforces decisions that are based on optimising XP gain, you're in one of those styles. If the group takes an interest in a wider focus, or shifts it entirely, to cover interactions that can't be construed in any way in terms of "optimisation"--like deciding to help some NPC not because of the XP, or because they're on the stronger side or can otherwise help you become more "powerful", but because you like that person or maybe dislike their enemy, then you've got a style of play that isn't "all about overcoming obstacles". That is, part of the attraction and enjoyment is derived from an entirely distinct aspect of RPGs.

Does anyone else besides Seanchai have a problem with what I'm expressing here?

Quote from: chaosvoyagerNot conflict, tension.

Things like spilling soda on your date, or wondering if your bodyguard is about to betray you.

And come to think of it, all the reward systems I like build tension in some way, like D&D's HP and CoC's Sanity, as opposed to resolve conflict or increase status.

Tension is nothing more than sublimated conflict.  You're playing word games now.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe confict was still there, regardless.

Conflict is at the heart of almost any action worth describing in an RPG - even if it's just the planning and shopping phases of preparation for a dungeon-crawl, it occurs because there is conflict of some kind.

Levi, please look back in the thread. I've been trying to focus on the main issue here--the concept of "reward systems" as applied to D&D. The definition of conflict and its role in fiction is really pretty peripheral, unless you're trying to draw attention to the interest & value of internal conflicts in D&D regardless of what the XP system does--which is basically my point.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_DMG_XPFinal.asp

QuoteYou could award experience points for solving a puzzle, learning a secret, convincing an NPC to help, or escaping from a powerful foe. Mysteries, puzzles, and roleplaying encounters (such as negotiations) can be assigned Challenge Ratings, but these sorts of awards require more ad hoc ruling on the DM’s part.

Challenge Ratings for noncombat encounters are even more of a variable than traps. A roleplaying encounter should only be considered a challenge at all if there’s some risk involved and success or failure really matters. For example, the PCs encounter an NPC who knows the secret password to get into a magical prison that holds their companion. The PCs must get the information out of her—if they don’t, their friend remains trapped forever. In another instance, the characters must cross a raging river by wading, swimming, or climbing across a rope. If they fail, they can’t get to where the magic gem lies, and if they fail spectacularly they are washed away down the river.

You might see such situations as having a Challenge Rating equal to the level of the party. Simple puzzles and minor encounters should have a CR lower than the party’s level if they are worth an award at all. They should never have a CR higher than the party’s level. As a rule, you probably don’t want to hand out a lot of experience for these types of encounters unless you intentionally want to run a low-combat game.

In the end, this type of story award feels pretty much like a standard award. Don’t ever feel obligated to give out XP for an encounter that you don’t feel was much of a challenge. Remember that the key word in "experience award" is award. The PCs should have to do something impressive to get an award.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLevi, please look back in the thread. I've been trying to focus on the main issue here--the concept of "reward systems" as applied to D&D. The definition of conflict and its role in fiction is really pretty peripheral, unless you're trying to draw attention to the interest & value of internal conflicts in D&D regardless of what the XP system does--which is basically my point.

Fair enough.

In general, really sweet reward systems make me wonder how else they could be applied, so I go bouncing all over the map as a result.  Which leads pretty naturally to that tangent.

But I hear ya.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLevi, please look back in the thread. I've been trying to focus on the main issue here--the concept of "reward systems" as applied to D&D. The definition of conflict and its role in fiction is really pretty peripheral, unless you're trying to draw attention to the interest & value of internal conflicts in D&D regardless of what the XP system does--which is basically my point.

And my point is that the universal importance of conflict in the narrative sense is directly related to how D&D handles rewards, in the form of advice written in the damn book on giving rewards for all kinds of conflict or obstacle.  

In other words, Levi has a point, and you're arguing something that's an established fact, both in literature, and in the specific game being discussed.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe person who originally uttered that claim in the thread agrees with me, but somehow Seanchai disagrees.

Ooh, i uttered a claim. Mom would be proud! Could i have snarled it instead? That's much cooler. :D

QuoteIf some sort of verbal gymnastics gets the reader to "dealing with internal conflict is a kind of 'overcoming obstacles'", then I'm done.

Thing is mate, that this could easily be counted as an obstacle for xp purposes in d&d (and other games?), if that's what is decided round the table. You also have 'roleplaying awards', which i always find too subjective, but hey, it's there.

I agree that obstacles aren't what roleplaying is all about, but ultimately, everything else is just what gets you there or gets you back again. I'm also thankful for whoever decided i was actually talking about conflict. :)

Quote from: J ArcaneTension is nothing more than sublimated conflict.  You're playing word games now.

Oops. My bad. I didn't mean to sound like I was correcting you. I was just trying to make the aspect of conflict being discussed more specific.

What I meant to say was that most games reward resolving conflict as opposed to building tension, and hence many character builds tend to be designed to resolve conflicts as efficiently as possible. But the last thing I want in my games is for conflicts to be resolved as efficiently as possible. In fact, sometimes I want to reward players for NOT resolving conflicts, but this goes against the mental grain of so many gamers that it's often hard to sell as a concept.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerOops. My bad. I didn't mean to sound like I was correcting you. I was just trying to make the aspect of conflict being discussed more specific.

What I meant to say was that most games reward resolving conflict as opposed to building tension, and hence many character builds tend to be designed to resolve conflicts as efficiently as possible. But the last thing I want in my games is for conflicts to be resolved as efficiently as possible. In fact, sometimes I want to reward players for NOT resolving conflicts, but this goes against the mental grain of so many gamers that it's often hard to sell as a concept.

I will agree with you that, even in the advice and optional sections, D&D tends to prefer resolution of conflict, and it also doesn't really touch on "Man vs. himself" much, except in the form of alignment conflicts, where it doesn't so much reward successful conflict resolution, as it does penalize failed resolution.

But by and large D&D aims for more of an action-packed adventure, and for that reason the mechanic serves beautifully.

Quote from: James J SkachCause, ya know, some sensitive D&D player might get the feeling you're implying hack n' slash/munchkinism is the only point to D&D.  Ya know, that you only roll-play not role-play.

Fuck that guy and the horse he rode in on.

One of the things that turned Diablo into a huge success was something D&D had (by that point) spent about 5 years trying to run away from to establish their "serious artistic street cred": the pure, healthy joy of kicking in the door of a dungeon, killing the foul thing inside and taking its stuff.

One town, one dungeon many, many levels deep, with a horrifying creature struggling to escape its last bonds and conquer the world. Am I talking about Diablo or the Temple of Elemental Evil? Yes. :)

Chuck

Quote from: chaosvoyagerWhat I meant to say was that most games reward resolving conflict as opposed to building tension, and hence many character builds tend to be designed to resolve conflicts as efficiently as possible. But the last thing I want in my games is for conflicts to be resolved as efficiently as possible. In fact, sometimes I want to reward players for NOT resolving conflicts, but this goes against the mental grain of so many gamers that it's often hard to sell as a concept.

I've run games where the rewards are giving for creating interpersonal conflicts.

LARPs, mind - where I can't track or manage all the action.

It has an effect on the landscape, doing that.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerOops. My bad. I didn't mean to sound like I was correcting you. I was just trying to make the aspect of conflict being discussed more specific.

What I meant to say was that most games reward resolving conflict as opposed to building tension, and hence many character builds tend to be designed to resolve conflicts as efficiently as possible. But the last thing I want in my games is for conflicts to be resolved as efficiently as possible. In fact, sometimes I want to reward players for NOT resolving conflicts, but this goes against the mental grain of so many gamers that it's often hard to sell as a concept.

This is a really interesting point, choas.  Do you think there's enough depth to start a new thread about reward systems based on not resolving conflicts? Do you think something could be tacked on to d20/D&D that would facilitate that kind of system?

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckFuck that guy and the horse he rode in on.

One of the things that turned Diablo into a huge success was something D&D had (by that point) spent about 5 years trying to run away from to establish their "serious artistic street cred": the pure, healthy joy of kicking in the door of a dungeon, killing the foul thing inside and taking its stuff.

One town, one dungeon many, many levels deep, with a horrifying creature struggling to escape its last bonds and conquer the world. Am I talking about Diablo or the Temple of Elemental Evil? Yes. :)

It also applies to World of Warcraft when you're talking about their 5-man dungeon instances, their 10/20/25/40-man raid instances (or outdoor bosses, or faction leaders), and many of their better quests.  (Not to mention parts of my favorite Battleground, Alterac Valley.)  Hell, much of WOW is a development from the lessons of Diablo and Diablo II.

Quote from: James J SkachThis is a really interesting point, choas.  Do you think there's enough depth to start a new thread about reward systems based on not resolving conflicts? Do you think something could be tacked on to d20/D&D that would facilitate that kind of system?

Yes on both accounts, but I'm not sure theRPGsite is really the place to discuss it.

Regardless, one D20 Mod I use is to convert lost HP into Exp, so the only way to advance in level is to get your ass handed to you, just like real life. Sure you have to adjust the exchange rate for classes with lower hit dice, or better yet give everyone the same HP per level (as it's not really measuring health anymore), but it means that characters will have to face challenges that will affect them if they expect to improve. So characters are no longer rewarded for resolving conflicts, but by being threatened in them.

And this actually works rather well I've found, once certain players stop bitching about it :)

Quote from: chaosvoyagerYes on both accounts, but I'm not sure theRPGsite is really the place to discuss it.

Regardless, one D20 Mod I use is to convert lost HP into Exp, so the only way to advance in level is to get your ass handed to you, just like real life. Sure you have to adjust the exchange rate for classes with lower hit dice, or better yet give everyone the same HP per level (as it's not really measuring health anymore), but it means that characters will have to face challenges that will affect them if they expect to improve. So characters are no longer rewarded for resolving conflicts, but by being threatened in them.

And this actually works rather well I've found, once certain players stop bitching about it :)

Curious...why do you think it's not good to discuss it here?  I mean, I asked...right?

Your example doesn't change the focus away from conflicts though - whcih is cool because you've made me narrow my question.  Can you think of ways to mod d20/D&D to move away from experience-for-conflicts while still systematically awarding experience (and not meta-game stuff like who take the journal, etc.)?

Quote from: James J SkachCurious...why do you think it's not good to discuss it here?  I mean, I asked...right?

Fair enough, which is why I responded, but I find that the signal to noise ratio tends to be considerably bad here for matters of this kind. That's all.

But it's being usefully discussed now, and that's what matters.

Quote from: James J SkachYour example doesn't change the focus away from conflicts though - whcih is cool because you've made me narrow my question.  Can you think of ways to mod d20/D&D to move away from experience-for-conflicts while still systematically awarding experience (and not meta-game stuff like who take the journal, etc.)?

Are you talking about rewarding other forms of character behavior? One way to do that might be to allow characters to invoke disadvantages or impulses to gain Exp, but I'd also want to balance that in some manner so they don't go milking it constantly, or at undramatic moments.

One problem you run into here though is that Exp can quickly become a product of what the other players THINK you're doing. If you get points for acting cowardly, what happens if the GM doesn't believe you acted cowardly?

Sorry, I know it isn't much of an answer, but the soup's not finished yet.

Hey, no problem.  I'm just kicking around the idea based on this thread and I thought you might have already kicked it down the road further.

What I'm trying to hone in on is the concept of rewarding other behavior, but not in the way that, say, D&D does by suggesting role-play or story, and not in some meta-gamey way, for the various reasons you mention (and Warthur brought up in this (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6688) thread).

I'm looking for a more generic approach - like xp for use of skill, etc.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou heard me.

That big theory thing that occasionally gets waved about, yammering about rewards?

D&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

At base, you find the challenging encounter.  You kick it's ever-lovin' ass.  You get the Xp and the loot.  You use those to become more proficient at...

What's that?  Kicking ass?  

That's the stuff.

Not only that, but in D&D, you become more proficient in kicking ass in a way that is unique and differentiated to suit you - meaning that while we're all in the same rat race, we're doing it in in different ways, which means that we don't feel like we're stepping on each other's toes, but instead encourage us to work together.

So, 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.

I agree, but I think people often oversimplify the impact of mechanical reward systems.

D&D gives you mechanical rewards for killing things and taking their stuff; it doesn't give you so much (mechanically) for kick-ass playing your character or for resolving problems without combat (technically, it can, but often in a less formalized way... and the XP you get generally make you better at combat than at whatever it was you actually did).

I think a lot of System Does Matter people make the mistake of thinking that players are primarily motivated by mechanical rewards. In my experience that's often not the case and very rarely the whole story.

Being overly-focused on what the game rewards (or what percentage of the rules cover combat, or whatever), I think ignores the obvious: in a functional group the actual players, at the table, decide what the game is about and how it's about it. They choose to use the rules in a way that suites them.

When I play D&D I'm rarely focused on mechanical rewards to the point of often forgetting to record XP I've earned. I'm way, way, way more focused on the pleasures of interacting with my friends, exploring the DM's world, and so-on.

D&D doesn't give me an mechanical rewards for this stuff, but that's never stopped me or the folks I've gamed with from enjoying those aspects of the game.

Cheers,
-E.

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

Seanchai

Some degree of conflict is probably desirable in all games; I'd say that conflict is necessary but not always sufficient for solid scenario design. And there are whole categories of game themes where the identifiable conflict is parsley instead of the main course.

I think 2001, a Space Odyssey, is an example of a reasonably game-able story that is less about conflict than about other themes (yes, they fight Hal, but if anyone thinks that 2001 is primarily about Man v. Machine or Ape v. Ape, I guess we have no common ground for discussion of the movie).

A more game-related example would be scenes where the focus is on playing a character rather than overcoming an obstacle (e.g. shopping expeditions). While I suppose someone could claim that there *is* conflict in a shopping expedition (Man v. Department Store? Man v. His Savings?) that renders the term "conflict" tautological and suddenly much less useful or interesting.

Bottom Line: Conflict is an important element, but I see a lot of discussion that seems to reduce the discussion of "what's important" in RPG's to a pretty  simplistic equation that I don't think holds up across the full spectrum of RPG play.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'd say that conflict is necessary but not always sufficient for solid scenario design. And there are whole categories of game themes where the identifiable conflict is parsley instead of the main course.

Can you give us some specific examples?

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachHey, no problem.  I'm just kicking around the idea based on this thread and I thought you might have already kicked it down the road further.

Dude, I kicked it into the conceptual woods, and now I don't even know where the darn thing is anymore!

Quote from: James J SkachWhat I'm trying to hone in on is the concept of rewarding other behavior, but not in the way that, say, D&D does by suggesting role-play or story, and not in some meta-gamey way, for the various reasons you mention (and Warthur brought up in this (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6688) thread).

I'm looking for a more generic approach - like xp for use of skill, etc.

No matter what the rules, in the end players create their own reward systems anyway. For example, winning a Half-Life death match using only the crowbar offers no 'official' bonus points for winning, yet it remains a fun objective. That's why I don't believe in mechanically defined reward systems, just rules and permutations. The players will decide what about it all is important to, and fun for, them.

Quote from: SeanchaiCan you give us some specific examples?

Seanchai

To be a bit repetitive...

2001: A Space Odyssey (the film) seems to me to be less about the evident conflict (Man turns off Machine) and more about the ideas, the wonder of space travel, and so-on. Another literary example would be Flatland, where the main focus is "what would interacting with a being from another planet be like?"

I've been in games like that -- where the GM's got some pretty amazing intellectual property (mind-blowing ideas) and floating through them like David Bowman or Raphael (Utopia) was pretty fascinating. I'm thinking of 2 particular games -- one of them we played a group of young folks who experienced a series of transcendent, cosmic hallucinations that disconnected us gently from the mundane world; but without any major drama or, really, trauma.

As with 2001, there was some conflict (in fact, combat) involved, but it wasn't in any way challenging or really threatening (we didn't run into anything that could really damage us).

I don't think ultra-low conflict games are particularly common, and they're something of a high-wire act (if your cool idea isn't quite up to Kubrick / Clarke, you're going to be pretentious and boring), but I've seen it done so I know it's possible.

More down-to-earth I think some of the classic joys of gaming aren't really about conflict to any really significant degree -- I talked about the basic shopping expedition above, where the players spend a session buying cool stuff. I also think the grind, where you work up a character from Level 1 to Level 3, or so with next-to-no-risk combat doesn't quite qualify as conflict (but since it definitely qualifies as *combat* I may be wrong / insane).

I've both run and played in humorous scenarios where the main point was an amusing setting or situation (I ran a dungeon that had been cleaned out by a previous party of adventurers, with no traps, no treasure, and no monsters remaining -- again, not the sort of thing that you'd want a steady diet of, but it was reasonably cool and something the players still talk about).

I also ran a game where they PC's recovered a helm of reverse alignment; that adventure had combat (a classic dungeon), but the subsequent session was more or less the PC's and NPC's speculating about what using the helm might be like and what the philosophical implications of that would be (what does it mean to go from being Chaotic Good to Lawful Evil, without really changing your personality or Int / Wis?)

Not an entire campaign with no conflict, but certainly a few sessions with nothing that I'd call a real conflict aren't that uncommon in the games I run and play in.

Specific enough?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Specific enough?

Sorry, I meant games or published scenarios.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiSorry, I meant games or published scenarios.

Seanchai

I'm confused.

When you say "games" do you mean rule-sets or instances of play? I wouldn't think of rules-sets as having anything to do with conflict or no-conflict; the rules are the rules... conflict or lack of it would come from the players.

I'm afraid I don't use published scenarios, so I can't help you there. What's wrong with the examples I provided?

Cheers,
-E.

Just so you know, E, without the conflict with HAL 9000, 2001 would have been fuckin' boring!

Great ideas and exploring conceptual themes is all well and good, but conflict isn't the garnish, its the spice, the plate, maybe even the damn flatware if the writer/GM is good.  And like a Burrito, sometimes the damn plate IS the meal.

Quote from: -E.I wouldn't think of rules-sets as having anything to do with conflict or no-conflict; the rules are the rules... conflict or lack of it would come from the players.

But surely the mechanics of any conventional RPG are all about resolving conflicts (regardless of whether those are a matter of "character versus character" or "character versus environment")?