For work on my own game, I was worked out that there are basically four ways to influence another person in a roleplaying game.  Lemme see if I can rebuild them...

Motives, Flaws, Bribes, Rails!  I think those were them.  It's based on a two by two grid, on one side is "You get... Rewarded/Penalized" and the other is "For...Doing/Avoid something."

Motives are when you get something for doing something else.  Experience points are the classic example, Exalted stunt dice are another.

Flaws are when you get penalized for doing something.  Flaws and Disadvantages in most games are the obvious one.

Bribes are when you get reward for NOT doing something.  GMs will sometimes bribe their players into something with EXP rewards or something.

Rails are when players are penalized for not doing something.  If the GM wants the players to follow a certain path, then penalizing them for doing anything else would fit this category, hence the name.


Personally, I see all of them as useful tools.  Combined with WHAT you use to reward or penalize them, and WHAT they do to get them, and you have very many tools to help manage a game. And do note that with some tweaking, this can apply to players and not just GMs.   I don't find it offensive in the least though.  I find the use and abuse of them offensive at times, but they're just tools to help giude a game in a certain direction.

I said "outside of xp," which for me includes saying "outside of combat, the major resource of xp in D&D."

In other words, D&D's reward mechanic centers around combat only. This is a good thing, because it means that outside of combat me & mine are free to decide what we consider rewarding play.

It's like sneaking out of the Club Med holiday camp for some unsupervised, nonadministered fun.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI said "outside of xp," which for me includes saying "outside of combat, the major resource of xp in D&D."

Ah, gotcha!  I didn't read the subtext.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn other words, D&D's reward mechanic centers around combat only. This is a good thing, because it means that outside of combat me & mine are free to decide what we consider rewarding play.

So ... do you play most of your D&D sessions without any combat?

Tony, you're talking nonsense.

Much of this mess comes from the need to import social theory, as a few have pointed out, and apply it universally to games.

No, just because something provides an advantage, that doesn't make it a reward.

(Edited for double-negative typo.)

As an aside...

The major source of XP in D&D is gold.  You don't need to actually kill things to take their stuff.  Maybe it's an oldschool vs. new D&D thing. :confused:

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI said "outside of xp," which for me includes saying "outside of combat, the major resource of xp in D&D."

In other words, D&D's reward mechanic centers around combat only. This is a good thing, because it means that outside of combat me & mine are free to decide what we consider rewarding play.

It's like sneaking out of the Club Med holiday camp for some unsupervised, nonadministered fun.

The problem to me here is not that D&D doesn't reward you for non-combat play. That's stupid, of course it rewards you or else you wouldn't play it.  But this thread isn't about non-mechanical rewards.  The other issue here is that XP is how you advance your character.  For many people, stat growth is the only growth. No XP, no growth.  No growth, no character.  No combat, no xp.   You see how this association goes?

Rewarding XP for non-combat is also not necessarily the solution.  But think of this: does you midnight raid accomplish nothing what so ever?  Do the rolls you make outside of combat have absolutely no modifiers?  Never added +2 to the difficulty due to wearing ratty bloodstained clothes while attempting to charm a noble?

In most cases, there are intangible rewards to non-combat activity.  If you form a new friendship with a noble, who can do you favors and such, then that's a powerful advantage, it's character growth, and it's a reward for good play.  Some games abstract that a bit and make it measurable, such as a Contacts or an Allies trait.

Quote from: Elliot WilenTony, you're talking nonsense.

Ah well, wouldn't be the first time, probably won't be the last.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNo, just because something provides an advantage, that doesn't not make it a reward.

Okay then, what else is necessary?

Tony, you keep asking questions when what's required is a response in the form of a statement, hopefully exceeding one or two sentences and addressing a specific argument.

CA, if I claim that a game can be rewarding precisely for limiting its mechanic rewards to a specific part of play, i.e. combat, and leaving the rest up to the group, then the relation between intra- and extra-game rewards is part of this thread.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTony, you keep asking questions when what's required is a response in the form of a statement, hopefully exceeding one or two sentences and addressing a specific argument.

Uh ... okay.
   I think that reward mechanics are a useful tool.  I agree with you that there is also lots of fun to be had in ways that don't use that tool.  I don't think that's any sort of indictment of the tool.  All of the complaints I've heard so far were actually against reward mechanics so clearly mismanaged that it is akin to complaining that hammers are inherently evil because they always break your thumb, and that people shouldn't build a device whose sole purpose is the breaking of thumbs.How's that?

Much better.

I would add that the definition of when the line is crossed from tool to thumb crusher is a matter of taste also.

All, right Tony. I'll do some of your work for you.

In order for something to be a "reward" it has to be something you actually want, which acts as an incentive to do something. It also has to be a good in itself, not a stepping stone on the way to accomplishing something that you would accomplish anyway through the action that's being "rewarded".

Saying that a bonus for tactical positioning is a "reward" is like saying a chess player gets a "reward" through capturing a pawn. No: the outcome of neither action is a "reward" because their benefit (if any) is entirely instrumental.

So is money a reward even though it's just a stepping stone on the way to a new stereo? Is XP a reward even though it's just a stepping stone to the next level?

In a properly run / designed game, everything is a stepping stone to something else up until you reach the final scenes, finish the campaign, and roll the credits.

Uh ... yeah.  What James said.  The question of what is a stepping stone and what is a "goal" is largely a question of where you choose to draw imaginary lines and say "This is the start of a cycle, this is the end of one."

We can start by stipulating that giving a +2 bonus for attacking from the flank is not a reward. This should be like a lantern illuminating the darkness.

I've tried to write more but I'm in a bit of rush and it's not coming out right. In any case I think the thread is likely to get sidetracked; I do not see any benefit to examining tactical maneuvers in terms of reward. Or rather, if you think they're the same, then it explains a lot in terms of the way that many Forge games are received.

I don't know if it's a reward or not, but the rogues I've seen are very pavlovian about it.