Quote from: StuartI think it's unusual (unless there is cheating or a bad call be the referee) that you would Win without getting recognition + satisfaction.

I've won plenty of board and card games and gotten no recognition worth speaking of.

Haven't you?

QuoteI've won plenty of board and card games and gotten no recognition worth speaking of.

Haven't you?

Recognition doesn't mean fawning adoration.

Did the other players recognized that you won the game, or did they dispute it?  If they conceed that you won the game fair and square, that's recognition.  I guess if they called you a cheat, that's something else.

However, I'll agree that this does suggest winning a solo game (eg. Solitaire) is less rewarding that winning a game involving other players.

Quote from: StuartDid the other players recognized that you won the game, or did they dispute it?  If they conceed that you won the game fair and square, that's recognition.  I guess if they called you a cheat, that's something else.

"Aw, you just got lucky."

Quote"Aw, you just got lucky."

Some games have challenges based on luck.

Quote from: StuartSome games have challenges based on luck.

You see what I'm getting at, though?

There are people that deliberately refuse to give 'recognition' in certain types of games.  Sore losers, I believe they're called.

"The reason I no longer play Magic" could also be applied as a title for them, though.

QuoteYou see what I'm getting at, though?

There are people that deliberately refuse to give 'recognition' in certain types of games. Sore losers, I believe they're called.

"The reason I no longer play Magic" could also be applied as a title for them, though.

Yes, that's a very good point -- a sore loser will diminish the reward you should normally get from a game.

I think recognition doesn't have to be something explicitly stated either:  If you're playing an RPG and you start doing some improvisation in character, you can read the reactions from the other players even if they don't actually tell you "nice work".  Even having them sit and listen to you, and react in character is a much better reward than having them roll their eyes, ignore what you're doing or telling you to be quiet and stop wasting time.

Quote from: StuartI think recognition doesn't have to be something explicitly stated either:  If you're playing an RPG and you start doing some improvisation in character, you can read the reactions from the other players even if they don't actually tell you "nice work".  Even having them sit and listen to you, and react in character is a much better reward than having them roll their eyes, ignore what you're doing or telling you to be quiet and stop wasting time.

Okay.

So, in D&D, roleplaying in the speak-as-or-for-your-character sense because the game implies, and by implication creates, a set of rewards (social ones, like recognition) for that behaviour?

Grabbing a handful of my own jargon, the engine does not explicitly reward roleplaying, but the strongly implied methods certainly do?

QuoteSo, in D&D, roleplaying in the speak-as-or-for-your-character sense because the game implies, and by implication creates, a set of rewards (social ones, like recognition) for that behaviour?

Grabbing a handful of my own jargon, the engine does not explicitly reward roleplaying, but the strongly implied methods certainly do?

People who are skilled at improvisation and storytelling (both players and GMs) can get recognition as a reward for their performances.

Being explicitly told "nice job" is probably a lot more reward than just "reading the audience" too...

I think the improvisation and storytelling can become a reward for the other players -- although it's a difficult one for them to predict.

QuoteSo, in D&D, roleplaying in the speak-as-or-for-your-character sense because the game implies, and by implication creates, a set of rewards (social ones, like recognition) for that behaviour?

I think we need to keep in mind that the "speak-as-or-for-your-character" sense of roleplaying is how you interact with the game in D&D.  

"Okay I ask the wizard: 'Hey, have you seen the widget of power?'"

That doesn't assume you're getting deeply into character or delivering a incredible performance or generating an entertaining narrative.

I think you might be meaning Roleplaying as in "Good Improvisation or Good Story Telling".

Edit:

The first is your "move" in the game, and could receive recognition for it's strategic worth.

The second is your acting / storytelling, and the recognition there is based on the game system (do you get XP for RP?) as well as the other players in the group.  Some groups value good "roleplaying" more than others -- so your reward would depend on the people at the table.

Quote from: StuartPeople who are skilled at improvisation and storytelling (both players and GMs) can get recognition as a reward for their performances.

Being explicitly told "nice job" is probably a lot more reward than just "reading the audience" too...

I think the improvisation and storytelling can become a reward for the other players -- although it's a difficult one for them to predict.

Okay, you're standing on the brink of a Forge idea here (one they stole from elsewhere, openly and gleefully, and which I stole in turn).  Let me point it out to you.

A "Reward cycle" is wherever the total system-of-play - the method, the engine, the social hierarchy of the players, everything, rewards a given kind of play, and thus causes it to reappear, where it can be rewarded some more, and so on.

Reward cycles can be implicit or explicit.  They can be recognized or unrecognized.  If I give Joe 'The Nod' whenever he kills an Orc, he's more likely to kill some more Orcs, ya know?

Right.

Now, Forge thinking says, drag all those cycles out into the light, and make 'em a recognized part of the game.  That way, you can build a game that rolls just the way you want, naturally and smoothly.

Sure.  If you want people to try and do X in a game, make X a condition under which you win the game.  Pretty straight forward.

Challenges vs Rewards

Some activities in a game can be seen as both Challenges and Rewards.  However, what makes them good challenges in a game is often different from what makes them good rewards for the other players.

Let's look at Story Telling and Improvisation.  While related, we'll use Story Telling to refer to guiding the overall narrative of the game, usually involving events, the environment, and "Non Player Characters" while Improvisation will refer to the performance of each player acting "In Character" and the actions they narrate their character taking.

Story Telling

Challenges based on story telling can have various restrictions imposed on it to increase the level of challenge and keep it within theme, genre, or other pre-defined limits.

Successful story telling creates an entertaining narrative which is a reward for the other players in the game.  Poor Story Telling does not generate this reward and could even be considered a "risk" associated with playing the game!

In traditional RPGs, the GM is usually selected because they are one of the best in the group at story telling, increasing the likelihood of the entertaining narrative as a reward.  In games where multiple players engage in story telling, the overall reward tends to be the average of all the players abilities.  This will usually be less than the reward of narrative from the best player in the group unless all players in the game have equal ability.  The lessened reward from entertaining narrative is usually offset by an increased reward to each player based on personal satisfaction and recognition from the rest of the group.

Increasing the number of storytellers can also increase the likelihood that suspension of disbelief will be broken by introducing inconsistencies to the story. This can lessen the reward of an "immersive" narrative experience for some players.

Improvisation

Improvisation as a challenge can also have various restrictions imposed on it to increase the level of challenge and keep the improvisation within the bounds of the game narrative.  

The reward of watching entertaining improvisation from other players is increased if some conventions of improvisational theatre are adopted, which generally removes restriction on the improvisation itself.  Not blocking other players improvisational suggestions relating to the narrative tends to lead to better improvisational performances.  This can be seen in RPGs that encourage players to "not say 'no' to other player's narrative contributions".

Increased improvisational freedom can require the game narrative (eg Story Telling) to be subordinate to the performance during improvisation.

What does this tell us

* Think carefully about what the actual challenges in the game are, and what the players are offered as a reward for being successful at those challenges.

Aside: I need to think a bit more about the "what does this tell us"... I also think there can be overlap between Story Telling and Improvisation... But this gets my initial thoughts out there for comment...

I've refined this and posted it at DesignMeme.com.  Thanks for the feedback.