TheRPGSite

Over on another thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=75634#post75634) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=75634#post75634) 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 :D

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?

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? :D

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.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn order for something to be a "reward" it has to be something you actually want, which acts as an incentive to do something.

I think, then, that there are at least two types of "rewards".  There are "incentives" and there are "acknowledgments".  My group uses "good idea points" more as an acknowledgment that a player contributed something cool to the session than an incentive to think up cool things.

Quote from: TonyLBI'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?

HI Tony:

I think it was me that misread your post. Re-reading it when I'm not pressed for time, I think it's exactly what I meant, just from a different direction.

-clash

Quote from: John MorrowI think, then, that there are at least two types of "rewards".  There are "incentives" and there are "acknowledgments".  My group uses "good idea points" more as an acknowledgment that a player contributed something cool to the session than an incentive to think up cool things.

That wasn't really the direction I was going. (That's something that's still percolating in my mind.) But I'd like to look at it anyway.

Why bother acknowledging cool contributions? How would your game be different with or without the acknowledgment?

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhy bother acknowledging cool contributions? How would your game be different with or without the acknowledgment?

 It reminds me of the argument for and against giving bonus XP for "good roleplaying."  Just about every game book I have mentions that in the GM section.  Something like "1 point for showing up, 1 point for bringing snacks, 1 point for drawing the map or keeping a game journal, 1 point for good roleplaying, etc..."  

To some, the good roleplaying bonus is a way of encouraging quiet players to speak up and rewarding active players for their contributions.  Others see it as a way of giving loudmouths incentive to keep hogging the spotlight (suppressing quiet players) and bribing non-interested players into play with mechanical rewards (which people uninterested in the game wouldn't care about anyway, so it fails.)

Now, non-mechanical rewards (accolades and praise) are just being polite.  If a guy impresses you with his narratives ("does something cool") then he should be patted on the back, thanked, or whatever.  Do you not applaud at the end of a good play?  Then at least toss your friend a "Hey, that's was awesome dude!" when something is neat.

A topic for another thread, but that's also a metagame reward mechanic: one built into most societies.  It's also a more effective method of drawing out quiet or uninterested gamers than trying to give them more XP.

It's all economic, and I should really write my thoughts on that down at length as well.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhy bother acknowledging cool contributions? How would your game be different with or without the acknowledgment?

Why applause a band when they are done playing?  After all, you are paying them to play and they are already done?  It's a nice gesture.  

We don't always include them.  Sometimes we do.  Sometimes we don't.  Often it's spontaneous.  I don't think it really changes the game all that much either way.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy applause a band when they are done playing?  

That's a good metaphor to express what I find irritating about games with too strongly foregrounded in-game reward mechanics: Our band is trying to play this song, and there's this constant clapping of hands going on in the background. I wish they'd just let us play--we'd be enjoying ourselves more.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy applause a band when they are done playing?  After all, you are paying them to play and they are already done?  It's a nice gesture.  

We don't always include them.  Sometimes we do.  Sometimes we don't.  Often it's spontaneous.  I don't think it really changes the game all that much either way.

Thanks. Also--on rereading, my question was much more abrubt than I intended. I hope you didn't take it as a rhetorical "why bother?"

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat's a good metaphor to express what I find irritating about games with too strongly foregrounded in-game reward mechanics: Our band is trying to play this song, and there's this constant clapping of hands going on in the background. I wish they'd just let us play--we'd be enjoying ourselves more.

See, now I'm running aground on what it is that you're getting out of D&D.  Do you actually roll any dice outside of combat, or are you basically just freeform storytelling with a combat engine attached for when you get bored of talking?  I'm not saying any method is bad, I'm just trying to figure out what your doing.

Because to me, in Exalted for example, "Take 2 stunt dice for that awesome description" is the least disruptive part of play, far behind other things like: rolling 20 dice at once and counting up successes (twice per attack), working out how much essence I want to spend on charms this round, adding up all the bonuses from charms, figuring out the penality to my defense value, and so on and so forth.  

Likewise, I've never had a problem with XP interfering with fun.  I tabulate it up during the session, and hand out points at the end of the night.  Usually, everyone gets the same points, though sometimes I'll toss out an extra here and there if someone was just really impressive during play.  

I'm at a loss for how you can find reward mechanics so intrusive, and now I'm just really curious as to what kind of gaming goes on in your group.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat can I say ... I'm a Spiderman fan :D

It has shattered my faith in humanity that a "Threat or Menace" Google image search has yielded no Spider-man artwork to post here. A fucking Doonesbury strip, but no Spidey.


So far, that's all I would have had to contribute to this thread. Carry on. :cool:

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: CodexArcanumSee, now I'm running aground on what it is that you're getting out of D&D.  Do you actually roll any dice outside of combat, or are you basically just freeform storytelling with a combat engine attached for when you get bored of talking?

What do you mean "just," kid?

As I said, not all of us are Club Med tourists. Some of us just pay for the flight and take off on our own.

A disappointment to those who want to run our vacation for us, but hey. It's our vacation, and we know best how to reward ourselves.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat do you mean "just," kid?

As I said, not all of us are Club Med tourists. Some of us just pay for the flight and take off on our own.

A disappointment to those who want to run our vacation for us, but hey. It's our vacation, and we know best how to reward ourselves.

I don't want to push to much, and I'm certainly not going to throw in a "just," but I am actually curious as to how you play - like in an actual play way or something. It sounds interesting.  Another thread?  An actual play post?  Or tell me to shove off...

I think the Club Med metaphor is throwing me off, please just say what you actually do, and stop dancing around with the distracting language.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that you were "just" freeform roleplaying.  I've freeformed plenty of times myself and I'm not saying that a reward mechanic is an essential part of any game design.  Pretty much nothing is essential except some friends and some imagination.  But it'd be a boring world full of unsatisfied gamers if every book was a freeform, systemless game.

I'm not sure how this happened, but it looks like this is a simple misunderstanding. I'm not saying I've been playing in these l33t D&D groups where we all have mad improv skillz or anything.

I was getting at what I thought was a simple distinction between two different kinds of rewards that are related to two different kinds of rules. In D&D and a zillion other games, you get in-game rewards for combat and not much else, and that reward is doled out at the end of a session (xp), ie after play is over.

In other games, you a) get a stream of rewards in-game; b) including for roleplaying. I dislike that intuitively, though I realize it's a matter of taste. To me, when people play their characters well, a good time is had by all: the play itself is the reward. To be rewarded by the game on top of that feels redundant to me. And to be forced by the game to roleplay well (and according to the game's definition of "well") in order to get a reward feels constrictive and instrumentalizing.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTo be rewarded by the game on top of that feels redundant to me. And to be forced by the game to roleplay well (and according to the game's definition of "well") in order to get a reward feels constrictive and instrumentalizing.

Oh, I see what you mean now.  Yeah, I can agree with that. :D