Over on another thread some folks jumped on the idea of using rewards (a.k.a. "bribes" or "scooby snacks") to openly sway the choices of players in the game.

They (roughly):  "We're not dogs!  Quit treating us like we're in one of Pavlov's experiments!"

Me (roughly):  "'kay ... but ... it's everywhere, dude.  How can you still be raw about it?  Isn't that like being allergic to oxygen?"

It was totally off-topic for the thread it was on, so I've exported it here.  I'm really quite fascinated to hear whether people believe that there are some types of feedback which are okay, and some types which are insulting.  I'd like to hear how they draw the line.  I might even agree with them.  Right now I just don't have enough information.

Quote from: TonyLBOver on another thread some folks jumped on the idea of using rewards (a.k.a. "bribes" or "scooby snacks") to openly sway the choices of players in the game.

They (roughly):  "We're not dogs!  Quit treating us like we're in one of Pavlov's experiments!"

Me (roughly):  "'kay ... but ... it's everywhere, dude.  How can you still be raw about it?  Isn't that like being allergic to oxygen?"

It was totally off-topic for the thread it was on, so I've exported it here.  I'm really quite fascinated to hear whether people believe that there are some types of feedback which are okay, and some types which are insulting.  I'd like to hear how they draw the line.  I might even agree with them.  Right now I just don't have enough information.

Hi Tony:

I think the key is buy in and options. I don't particularly care for D&D precisely because of it's heavy focus on killing things and taking their stuff is fixed for all, not an option you can choose to buy into. Your example in the previous thread of the elf getting bonuses in certain weapons is OK, because it's an option you can choose. That's my particular line, others may differ.

-clash

Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  Are you making the claim that rewards don't influence you?  Or do you simply want a game that's subtle enough that you don't realize you're being swayed?

I am making the claim that outside of smart shopping and salivating for dog food, a "reward" is a majorly fuzzy thing indeed. I like leveling up, but I do not play to level up. I do not roleplay with a view to getting to-hit bonuses for said roleplaying.

I found playing AD&D 1E rewarding for many years. Is that because, against all odds, its reward mechanic was so sublimely subtle that I never realized I was salivating on command?

Or is what's at stake two different gaming styles?

What you're talking about feels a bit like going on vacation with Club Med. As far as I'm concerned, Club Med is hell. But some people find it very enjoyable to be constantly, ostentatiously told, and proven over and over again, that they're actually having fun.

"Are we having fun yet? Are we?? ARE WE???"

I don't like games that are yelling at me like that.

PS: "Threat or Menace," what kind of subject line is that?

Quote from: flyingmiceHi Tony:

I think the key is buy in and options. I don't particularly care for D&D precisely because of it's heavy focus on killing things and taking their stuff is fixed for all, not an option you can choose to buy into. Your example in the previous thread of the elf getting bonuses in certain weapons is OK, because it's an option you can choose. That's my particular line, others may differ.

-clash

And here we are:

When the ideas are *simplistic* -- as they are in RPG Theory, they're nearly worthless (or even, maybe, offensive).

There are mechanics in RPG's that affect behavior (XP for gold in D&D. XP for killing things. etc.)

There are whole fields of studies about how compensation and reward affects tactical choices (game theory in specific, and economics in general, for example).

Taking economic principles and applying them to RPG's is something that reasonably educated game designers do (would that more of those designers get their math right)...

RPG *theory* ought to provide guidelines for applying those extra-disciplinary ideas in a non-simplistic way.

RPG theory doesn't do this.

Therefore, the discussion ends up being trivial and empty -- notice that we're over here talking about whether or not the idea (what idea?) is offensive, rather than discussing how an experience point system in a game might affect tactical choices or game situations (which would be a game design discussion)...

Or we could even be talking about how experience point systems *in general* drive player behavior (which would be a theory discussion).

But we're not. We're talking about whether or not this is offensive.

Theory in action!

Cheers,
-E.

To make things clear - I don't consider reward mechanics as usually designed to be either offensive, threatening, or menacing. I just think they are generally coercive blunt objects, and when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In other words, I find them inelegant at best.

-clash

Same here. I find them a bit gauche, is all.

Quote from: flyingmiceI think the key is buy in and options.

So for you it's a question of a reward system so inherently necessary to continue the game that it's not a choice "take the bribe or don't" but merely "take this bribe or else you'll be forced to take some other bribe"?  If so, I can totally see that.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityPS: "Threat or Menace," what kind of subject line is that?

What can I say ... I'm a Spiderman fan

Threat or incentive?

Anyway, i think i get Tony's meaning here, although a too tightly focussed reward mechanism just rewards certain types of behaviour over every other, leading to games that are too tightly focussed and dare i say it, more forgelike (or some kinds of indy) in nature. Focus too tightly and you get a game that is limited in scope and of little replay value. Focus loosely and you get a more mainstream game. Ooh, controversial!

P.S Apologies for overuse of the word focussed! :haw:

Quote from: TonyLBSo for you it's a question of a reward system so inherently necessary to continue the game that it's not a choice "take the bribe or don't" but merely "take this bribe or else you'll be forced to take some other bribe"?  If so, I can totally see that.

Mwa? I said that? When?  

-clash

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat you're talking about feels a bit like going on vacation with Club Med. As far as I'm concerned, Club Med is hell. But some people find it very enjoyable to be constantly, ostentatiously told, and proven over and over again, that they're actually having fun.

"Are we having fun yet? Are we?? ARE WE???"

I don't like games that are yelling at me like that.

I ... really think you're reading more into what you think I'm saying than I'm actually saying.  Reward mechanisms can be subtle or they can be blatant.

I'd totally agree with you that a reward mechanism that takes up so much of your attention that you can no longer properly do the thing it's meant to reward is venturing into counter-productive territory.  But is that really a concern with the general idea of rewards?

Quote from: flyingmiceMwa? I said that? When?

I've clearly misinterpreted you ... which is precisely why I asked whether I'd gotten what you were saying right.  Can you possibly explain it another way, and I'll make another try at understanding?

Quote from: TonyLBI ... really think you're reading more into what you think I'm saying than I'm actually saying.  Reward mechanisms can be subtle or they can be blatant.

Yes, and they can also be absent. Undefined, nothing there, wide open, like D&D outside of xp. Leaving me & mine a space to fill with what we call, without ever so much as verbalizing it, fun.

QuoteI'd totally agree with you that a reward mechanism that takes up so much of your attention that you can no longer properly do the thing it's meant to reward is venturing into counter-productive territory.  But is that really a concern with the general idea of rewards?

I don't know what you mean. The Club Med model of reward I have in mind is Burning Wheel. The yelling. The cheerleading. The 61 minutes of fun out of one hour model.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYes, and they can also be absent. Undefined, nothing there, wide open, like D&D outside of xp. Leaving me & mine a space to fill with what we call, without ever so much as verbalizing it, fun.

Mmmmm ... I totally agree that you can have a game without rewards, but I'm hard-pressed to see D&D as that game.  There are so many tactical advantages being passed around to reward you for certain types of tactical play, after all.

Does the mechanical advantage of having your fighter engage the monster from in front, while the thief attacks from behind (rather than, say, vice-versa) not strike you as a reward?