I think RPGs can benefit greatly from a set of defined win/loss conditions, if not in the same sense as in other games (you don't keep playing most games having already won or lost). I think RPG win/loss conditions should generally be short-term gains/losses with potential for accumulation rather than game-ending scenarios (with the obvious exception of character death... the closest thing a rpgs have to an absolute loss).

That said, it seems a shame to me that, mechanically, D&D and its imitators have a simple level or die mentality while many of its competitors and "opposites" have little chance of long or short term gain or loss mechanically. Earlier editions of D&D may have the edge here thanks to things like level loss and the absence of "level appropriate treasure" and a slew of other rules.

So what are the fringe benefits of playing well in games you run or write? What are the consequences of failure when they aren't death? How do you support this mechanically, or is it entirely free form? Or do you disagree with the premise that there even are win/loss conditions in an RPG? I'm working on my own system for a lot of this stuff, but I'll leave it for later. What are your thoughts on the subject?

Quote from: beejazz;342502So what are the fringe benefits of playing well in games you run or write? What are the consequences of failure when they aren't death? How do you support this mechanically, or is it entirely free form? Or do you disagree with the premise that there even are win/loss conditions in an RPG? I'm working on my own system for a lot of this stuff, but I'll leave it for later. What are your thoughts on the subject?

In th game series In Harm's Way, I used Notice. Positive Notice is gained by doing spectacular stuff your (military) character should be doing. Negative Notice is gained by being an idiot or a screwup. You accumulate Notice to gain in military rank, although skills gain separately by time. Notice is given in character - mentions in despatches, praise from the CO, awards of medals and citations, etc. for positive Notice, dressing-downs, reaming-outs, rebuffs, and poor appraisals for negative Notice.

-clash

Win/loss conditions are up to the player. 'I want my character to be a noble', 'I want to found a wizard's guild', 'Let's start a new game after we kill the dragon', 'TPK - Let's start a new game'.

As a real question, what need is there for more than that?

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;342522Win/loss conditions are up to the player. 'I want my character to be a noble', 'I want to found a wizard's guild', 'Let's start a new game after we kill the dragon', 'TPK - Let's start a new game'.

As a real question, what need is there for more than that?

Those would be awkward goals in my WWII plots game...  Except maybe the last!

-clash

In Diaspora we don't really have fixed win/lose conditions (though one of our R&D projects certainly does) but we do provide a way for loss to be interesting without game-ending. If a character hasn't yet been taken out, the player can negotiate a concession -- offer to end the fight and set the circumstances other than being taken out. This puts the onus on the player to create a loss scenario that's compelling to the opponent (the ref usually) but isn't death. This way loss is important and interesting, but it's not strictly codified. Some of our best games have derived from following up on the consequences of such "losses".

The stated goal of a player should never be the SINGLE win/lose condition of a game.

First, it's just as bad as "level or die" except it's "succeed or not" and unlike experience gain, you have nothing to show for it.

Second, it lacks focus. "Become a king" sounds like a great goal except there's no mention by the player how he is going to achieve this. He's just running at the mouth or he expects the GM to drop this into his lap. Horrible. Players need to have a PLAN to go along with their main goals as well.

They should be seriously require to draft up a plan of action consisting of supporting objectives that if accomplished would help them successfully achieve the main goal.

In other words, there should also be enough objectives in the research, preparation, and execution phases of the game plan that the chance of absolute loss are not stupidly high because you just did not think of any other objectives that would help move you closer to your goal.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;342566The stated goal of a player should never be the SINGLE win/lose condition of a game.

First, it's just as bad as "level or die" except it's "succeed or not" and unlike experience gain, you have nothing to show for it.

Second, it lacks focus. "Become a king" sounds like a great goal except there's no mention by the player how he is going to achieve this. He's just running at the mouth or he expects the GM to drop this into his lap. Horrible. Players need to have a PLAN to go along with their main goals as well.

They should be seriously require to draft up a plan of action consisting of supporting objectives that if accomplished would help them successfully achieve the main goal.

In other words, there should also be enough objectives in the research, preparation, and execution phases of the game plan that the chance of absolute loss are not stupidly high because you just did not think of any other objectives that would help move you closer to your goal.

I felt the idea that the player would have to put in in-game time to planning and executing actions to meet their goals was obvious and did not need posting.

In my experience, the player who has a plan is the exception, not the rule. I blame GMs who who ask for such and like NEVER follow through on getting it (the goals) to the table, preferring their own insipid storyline.

In retrospect, I should probably have called them something besides win/lose conditions... maybe reward and... what's the opposite of a reward but not a punishment? I'm sure the idea that games should have "punishment" will sound really really bad, but rewards are tied to short term victory and it makes sense that short term failures have consequences. Anyway, I'll get into how I'm going to do things mechanically towards the end of this post, and you can decide what's what when you see it (whether it's a win/lose thing or a rewards/punishments thing).

Quote from: flyingmiceIn th game series In Harm's Way, I used Notice. Positive Notice is gained by doing spectacular stuff your (military) character should be doing. Negative Notice is gained by being an idiot or a screwup.

I do like mechanics like this, generally. RPGs often lack (and could use) abstract mechanics for social maneuvering or moving up within an organisation.

Quote from: Narf the MouseWin/loss conditions are up to the player. 'I want my character to be a noble', 'I want to found a wizard's guild', 'Let's start a new game after we kill the dragon', 'TPK - Let's start a new game'.

I agree and disagree. In character that's the case, but the mechanics generally dictate what kind of play is most rewarded and how. In D&D 3+, for example, your social skills and wealth hinge on killing and looting, so whatever the players' goals are (even if they are diplomatic goals), they'll often find themselves doing exactly that. So in order to run a diplomatic style game in that system, you're gonna have to change from the default to determine how people level up and gain wealth, or homebrew some other system for accumulating social advantages.

Quote from: HalfjackIn Diaspora we don't really have fixed win/lose conditions (though one of our R&D projects certainly does) but we do provide a way for loss to be interesting without game-ending. If a character hasn't yet been taken out, the player can negotiate a concession -- offer to end the fight and set the circumstances other than being taken out. This puts the onus on the player to create a loss scenario that's compelling to the opponent (the ref usually) but isn't death. This way loss is important and interesting, but it's not strictly codified. Some of our best games have derived from following up on the consequences of such "losses".

It's a little more freeform than I'd usually go, but I am all for mechanics that will add variability, so it sounds like a good solution if you don't always want failure to mean more or less the same thing.

Quote from: DeadUematsuThe stated goal of a player should never be the SINGLE win/lose condition of a game.

First, it's just as bad as "level or die" except it's "succeed or not" and unlike experience gain, you have nothing to show for it.

Second, it lacks focus. "Become a king" sounds like a great goal except there's no mention by the player how he is going to achieve this. He's just running at the mouth or he expects the GM to drop this into his lap. Horrible. Players need to have a PLAN to go along with their main goals as well.

They should be seriously require to draft up a plan of action consisting of supporting objectives that if accomplished would help them successfully achieve the main goal.

In other words, there should also be enough objectives in the research, preparation, and execution phases of the game plan that the chance of absolute loss are not stupidly high because you just did not think of any other objectives that would help move you closer to your goal.

To your first point, I wholeheartedly agree, and it's why I like the idea of variable win conditions for variable reward mechanics. The first so the game is flexible, the second so players have something more or less concrete to gain in the short term.

To your second point, I prefer setting more short term goals... things you can either do well or fuck up at utterly within the course of a single session.

To your third goal on planning and such, I don't see that I said otherwise, and I'm pretty sure I agree with you there too. I run a game heavy on mystery, exploration, and politicking, so figuring out what's going on and accumulating the power to do something about it is generally the short term focus.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;342673In my experience, the player who has a plan is the exception, not the rule. I blame GMs who who ask for such and like NEVER follow through on getting it (the goals) to the table, preferring their own insipid storyline.

Yeah, the whole GM story stuff is pretty crap. I've used it to kick start stories, but to the extent that I can I give the players options. Honestly, I haven't seen nearly as much player goal setting as I'd like in general. I'd like to think that if players did set their own goals, I'd prep so they could do something about it.

That said, my reward mechanics:

Attendance XP: Everyone gets 1xp for showing up.
Quest XP: Players define their quest objectives. When they complete a quest, they get 1xp. Most quests include secondary rewards.

Reputation: Players can accumulate reputation, and have their deeds listed next to their reputation score. The score (along with the deeds) determines how likely NPCs are to recognise you. The deeds determine what their initial reaction to you will be (so if you're doing things you'd rather not be known for, try and not let anyone find out).

Influence: Players can accumulate influence with various organisations (track for each separately) and make influence checks to call in favors. Available favors vary depending on the organisation. Players with high influence can attempt a coup or inherit a leadership position if it opens.

Contacts: Players can also gain contacts that they can call in favors from. There are also ways to lose contacts.

Wealth: Is pretty obvious.

Gear: Besides the mundane stuff, there is gear out there that is scarce, expensive, a cut above typical, or one of a kind. Play your cards right and you could find yourself in possession of gats and such.

Rituals: Rituals are scarce and expensive, but will expand a spellcaster's arsenal if he finds them.

Binding Monsters: Casters can also accumulate unique summoning lists by finding and binding powerful monsters (gotta catch 'em all).

Unique Perks: Becoming a vampire for example, will require you to find a vampire, kill it, and drink the black ichor that oozes from its neck. Or make a deal with an elder breathdrinker if you can find one. Anyway, permanent character abilities outside of leveling are available.

And for players who fuck up:

Random wounds for players who fight recklessly.
Insanity for players who consistently deal with stuff way out of their league.
Mutations for sticking around in a wild magic area too long.
Catastrophic spell failures for those who bite off more than they can chew. And this can include insanity, mutations, failing to control summoned monsters... all kinds of things.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some on both sides.