Experience points.
Do players deserve them?
Is it better to reward someone for a successful negotiation with a reputation as a rainmaker or an enhancement to his mechanical character? [1]
What are we actually rewarding?
I try to avoid using rules, even ones as fine as Ron's or Jared's or anyone elses. I've LARPed for days without using system whatsoever. So does it make sense for me to get experience points, when the rewards I generate come from my roleplaying? Should this difference be forced? Codified? Used?
If I were to run a game where the players were newly created vampires, and their powers manifested not as they earned experience but as time passed, would that be grounds for complaint, or would it give them the chance to focus on the meat of the issue, "role-playing not roll-playing" [heh].
If a successful use of a skill was rewarded, not with experience points that would raise the level, but with some advantage connected to the means in which success was generated. To go back to the rainmaker, reputation means that some things wouldn't go to negotiation, or that different tactics would be used at the table.
What if learning new skills took 'character time', not experience points? Or is this becoming an issue of currency? Should points gathered in the heat of battle by slaying dragons count as time spent in a classroom?
What if, after character generation, changes in the character could *only* be made if your GM agreed that it was appropriate, because you had done something that was best reflected by a change in numbers, rather than a change in circumstance?
I'll admit that there's a big interpretation issue involved, but I think it could be made workable.
Any thoughts?
drew
[1] There are two characters, IMO, mechanical and social. One is the numbers, the model through which one interacts with the game world, a body, if you will, constrained and defined by the physics of system. Social is the metaphysical part, what other people talk to. Course, that's just what I think.
Hey Drew,
I hope we can pick up this discussion from some of the points made on the
Reward Systems thread earlier.
Best,
Ron
Reward mechanics in roleplaying games are really just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
It's not a matter of whether the player deserves them. It's a matter of what will motivate the player to play the game the way it is meant to be played.
If the player is interested in improving his character, then rewards that boost his effectiveness or resources are what are needed. If the player is only interested in having a good time, making sure the game is fun is all that is required (and that's not entirely the GM's job - but that's a different thread). If you're part of my group, which currently is focused on closed story-arcs of four to five sessions, long term improvement means nothing; I want to see something I do have an impact on the game right now.
The game is supposed to be fun. Figure out what your players want, and then play a game that accomplishes that (not just any game will do - system does matter, afterall).
A while back I posted a thread in which I asserted that reward mechanics were the most important mechanics in a game. Because it was close to GenCon, Ron never had a chance to properly answer that thread. Is now a better time?
Take care,
Moose
[Edited Moments Later: Heh, Ron beat me to it. Yup, that's the thread I was referring to].
[ This Message was edited by: hardcoremoose on 2001-11-10 20:19 ]
Right, having found that [thank you for the reference, I'd looked for something on this topic and missed it], I'll start with your classifications:
For those of you who haven't read the discussion Ron refers to, please do, as this is directly based upon Ron's first post there, with more to follow.
1: Reward systems do generate value systems. I think this comes down to the currency issue, but there are other ones too. Where I am equally rewarded for killing the bad guy myself or ensuring that he is successfully prosecuted and incarcerated prior to state-sanctioned execution that says more to me about the value systems that lie behind a GMs game than almost anything else. Or, indeed, about my character, the system, my roleplaying ability, or anything else connected to 'experience'. I'm not sure about the GNS effects, I think it has strong simulationist vibes, but could serve as a carrot for both narrative flow [or, indeed, a stick, depending (1)], and is one of the bits of cake gamists like to eat.
2: That reward can span all of character currency, is, in retrospect, one of the main angles of my question. I think I'm arguing for a change in that currency, or at least an attempt to instantiate a rate of exchange. The Tomohawk missile that moose recieved could have done anything for his character. Used 'properly' it could have toppled a clan, if not the Camarilla, but that all falls down to character goals.
3: Linear scale over time - Is it harder for a grandparent to learn how to drive than a toddler? Why? If used, it seems inconsistent with how things actually work. Logarithmic, quasi-logarithmic, and other such nonlinear shenanigans fail, in many cases, to accurately reflect the learning process. Though challenge ratings may finally put paid to the legend of the high level butcher. [2]
4/5: Automatic, specific, continuous, and categorical are all parts of the same thing, namely what are the rewards of experience? To rephrase - What do you gain by experiencing them? [3]
6: Applied properly, rewards and punishment can be made the same thing. What do I 'gain' by sacrificing my arm to slay a dragon [I just don't like 'em, the scaly hoarders]. A dead dragon for a start. What's that worth?
I'll get onto Improvement, Personality Development, and
the "other things" in a bit.
Just to address the game currency issue, what rewards are is as much my question as what rewards are for.
As Damocles pointed out, a good reward system is:
Not vague.
This is an interesting, one, but it does lead to the discussion as to whether "good roleplaying" deserves those 1-3 points.
Of significant value.
Things are what you make them. Moose's tomahawk could have been some $K in scrap, some $m to the chinese, or, maybe, a shot at running the show. A +2 sword of peasantslaying might make a nice mantel decoration.
A reflection of the goals of the game.
When I first wrote this, I said 'values', thus signalling my argument. The rewards players get for playing, and why they get what they get, say more about a system than almost anything else. Don't they?
"Rewards should not lead to more rewards"
Moose said that a sword of killing stuff means a fighter can kill more stuff, but I'll stick with whoever said that it's only if something is challenging that there should be reward. Kennedy? "We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard".
Reward systems come from the GM.
Character development is a) more, or better numbers, b) more, or better stories [4], and c) more, or better things.
I think I've lost my own train of thought, so I'll write the footnotes and stop.
[1] Rewards can be punishments, of a kind. "Well done kid, now you're the fastest gun in the West..."
[2] It all really depends what your meat animals are.
[3] This is perhaps what this is all about. What are the rewards of experience?
[4] I'm pandering to the narrativists [heh] largely because I've no idea how they tie in with this yet. Unless it's in more toys to tell stories with.
In an effort to marshal all this together,
What is experience?
What does it buy?
drew
There's a lot of posts I just read--but I didn't see anything to the effect of what we've come up with. We've got a point-based, multi-genre, RPG (think GURPS or Hero in general philosophy). When it comes to XP, we've been thinking about a lot of different things:
1. Even in the same game with similar GNS-style players, some *characters* advance in Effectiveness differently (Luke changes a hell of a lot, Han Solo doesn't).
2. In some cases (a particular effect of point-based games but can happen in others) the player wants to get his or her character to some level of expertise and doesn't need to get them much further (fiction where for the first book the guy's a novice and then is a pro from then on).
3. Superheroes don't change their powers all that much--but if they do so, it's usually a serious change.
NONE of this has to do with rewarding certain player behaviors or character actions (considering that it's said 'we learn more when we fail' then failing to rescue the prince might well generate more XP than succeeding).
Some of our ideas are shaping up like this:
1. The player determines a 'growth arc' for his character. It can be slow-but-steady, novice-to-pro, or 'stepped' (which would indicate starting with more points and increasing slowly, starting with fewere but increasing much faster, and starting with fewer but suddenly changing *a lot*). We don't have a whole lot of concrete ideas (and in-game rewards might well factor in too--something I'm thinking about as I type).
2. You get points for playing in the game (rate possibly determined by the above). Usually all players get the same basic alotment (if the group likes the idea of rewards for great ideas or whatever, fine--but the default is everyone with the same growth-arc gets the same basic XP).
3. As I think about it, a pre-defined "character growth arc" could be a really cool narrativist tool (something you don't see in GURPS or Hero too often). It might just detail XP gain--but at least giving the GM ideas of how the character's supposed to end up 10-playsessions down the line XP or not seems like a good idea.
-Marco
Marco,
You say you don't see anything like what you've been working on, but I do. The old-school level-based development systems seem to bear some resemblance to what you describe...what were those levels if they weren't a character arc for you to follow.
Furthermore, I'm not sure you're describing a reward system. If the system eventually makes use of variable rewards that actually reward player behavior of some sort, then yeah, it is a reward system. If advancement along the character arc happens automatically, then I'm not so sure (I guess the reward is for playing, eh?).
Either way, the idea of a customizable character arc is interesting. I'm not sure it would work so well for narrativism, where the emphasis is on the emergence of story during play, but who knows. I'm interested in seeing what you do with it, though.
- Scott
On the note of customizable learning arcs, I have seen the one in Mekton Zeta work well. It's based on anime, so you are either a novice, who grows at a high rate, or an old veteran with a lot more skills, but grows at a slower rate. It fits in perfectly with the Luke Skywalker/Han Solo example.
One of the issues concerning reward systems that has been sitting on my mind, is that even in many systems that claim to be designed to tell good stories, the primary use of reward points is to improve one's character.
If we look at it as the ONLY way one can affect the story is through one's character, then the reward of improving the character allows you to affect more story. If, instead, we look at the points as allowing you to directly manipulate the story(plot points), then the goal becomes acquiring them solely for having more control of the story(a level of competition between who gets to tell the story). Since the GM is not limited by points(excepting Rune) or mechanics in telling the story, as determining scenarios and plots, the players, are competiting for plot control, but not necessarily in a fair arena.
On a related note, what is "good roleplaying" to be rewarded? As far as most rpg's are concerned, that means good story and actual portrayal of the character, although we could easily say if you helped everyone have fun, that was good playing(although perhaps not a role).
Finally, why must there be a reward system at all? Other types of games hold no carryover rewards(such as chess, you win, you lose, next game is a whole new game). Your character can grow, or change without necessarily becoming more powerful, or weaker, and if they do, who is to say that everyone has to grow at a fixed rate? Are these rules simply there to prevent powergaming? Or to make your earnings "official"?
A random firing of synapses to consider,
Bankuei
Hi Scott,
I *wasn't* trying to claim a unique idea--I'm *sure* it's been done somewhere (and maybe old-style leveling systems is it ... if you could customize them somewhat)--I just meant I didn't see my thoughts about reward systems in these *threads*. :smile:
Otherwise:
I think the reward *is* for playing. Any system that rewards something specifically (say, slaying monsters) is either driving gamist behavior or forcing a player (say a pacificsit character in AD&D) to do something he might not want to in order to achieve an effectiveness-oriented goal (being powerful enough to stand up to his nemesis later on, say). That's not a bad thing--but I wouldn't build it into a generic system.
-Marco
[in case anyone is interested, JAGS is at:
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/index.jsp ]
Actually, reward systems seem to used more as an incentive to play the game at all, let alone as intended.
I once spoke with someone who couldn't get his players to try TSR's Bullwinkle and Rocky RPG not because it was so different from a typical RPG, but because the characters didn't advance any.
Personally, I can see the advantage to this incentive. I just favor change over a linear advancement of progressively increased abilities. But that's me.
For example, I've been toying with a super hero RPG where instead of the typical improvement advancement the only real advancement is to find new ways to use your powers, which mirrors comic books a little more closely than improved abilities anyway. (Unless a character starts off inexperienced)
Never did figure out how to use this, but it's the way I'm leaning over no reward system aside from just play or the typical linear progression.
Hello,
I thought I'd lay out some categories to make some sense of this issue, which ain't simple.
First of all, there's a reason I call them REWARD systems, because we are talking about the real people, the role-playing humans. This is a pretty general category. People feel rewarded by many things, including achievement, improvement, reputation or admiration, privileges, continuation of the activity, and more.
One of the categories within role-playing reward systems is "character development." I am quite certain there are many others at this category-level which are very, very covert. (To be blunt, for many years in my case, it was the access to romantic opportunities among other players, often mediated through events in play.)
But to stick with Character Development, the next step is to consider all aspects of Currency as described in my essay. I think most of us agree that the traditional and most common version is "character improvement," using a Currency-item called "experience points" (regardless of its name in a particular game, most people keep the traditional term in conversation). Again, I suggest that there are may be other forms of Character Development that are not "character improvement," and again, that they are often tacit.
Regarding character improvment, most of us would agree, I think, that games vary a lot in what aspects of Effectiveness, Resource, and Metagame can be improved and at what rates.
Comparing (1) many dozens / few hundreds of role-playing games, and (2) many instances of play over the years, I can see that people really like to "have something to shoot for" during play. Faithfulness to the source material doesn't seem to be the issue; superheroes in comics do change over time (gradually or drastically), whereas pulp heroes do not.
I suggest that the "something to shoot for" itch can be shifted to Metagame rather than Effectiveness/Resource, and that some games have done a very good job of that (Sorcerer tries; its efficacy is not for me to say).
Let's talk about this "something to shoot for." What games provide it, and in what way? We can see the ongoing trickle of points to be spent on small and various aspects of the character in GURPS; we can see the "light at the end of the tunnel" represented by Prestige Classes in D&D3E or Rune status in RuneQuest; what else is there?
Best,
Ron
Quote
On 2001-11-11 12:04, pblock wrote:
For example, I've been toying with a super hero RPG where instead of the typical improvement advancement the only real advancement is to find new ways to use your powers, which mirrors comic books a little more closely than improved abilities anyway. (Unless a character starts off inexperienced)
Never did figure out how to use this, but it's the way I'm leaning over no reward system aside from just play or the typical linear progression.
Play either Marvel Supers or Champions. In Marvel you use your reward points (Karma?) to create "Power Stunts" which are new applications of their old powers. In Hero, you can break a power out into a Multipower or an Elemental Control and add stunts as you get enough points to pay for them. A very cool use for saved up points.
Been there, done that.
Mike
[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-11-12 11:17 ]
Mike,
Ditto. After a while of play, I found that one of the best uses of Champions' experience point system was to design a Variable Power Pool for one's related powers. If it was designed properly (which most players had to be scruffed to do), it was mighty expensive. So we kept an eye on the difference between the actual powers' cost on the sheet (say, a Multipower with slots being added as we went) and the cost of the desired VPP. When the former finally equalled the latter, we changed it all over into the VPP.
It worked really, really well for the Green-Lantern-sort of character.
I first considered the Metagame element of character development in Champions as well. It struck me as annoying that the thing one did with experience points was to REMOVE Metagame elements ("buying off disads") and generally did not permit it unless (a) another disadvantage was simply replacing the old one and happened to be cheaper, or (b) the old disadvantage was not being interesting or useful anyway.
The notion of (say) DNPCs being a POSITIVE motivator or Effectiveness-increaser of a superhero character was, needless to say, not considered by any of us during the 80s.
Best,
Ron
Quote
On 2001-11-12 10:17, Ron Edwards wrote:
Let's talk about this "something to shoot for." What games provide it, and in what way? We can see the ongoing trickle of points to be spent on small and various aspects of the character in GURPS; we can see the "light at the end of the tunnel" represented by Prestige Classes in D&D3E or Rune status in RuneQuest; what else is there?
Well, I think that this applies very strongly to GNS.
Traditionally, the Gamist reward gives the character more power to accomplish things in game. The idea is to reward success with the ability to be more successful or effective. For some players this is the very yardstick that they measure themselves against. Lately, though, some Gamist games have had some very interesting goals that are unrelated to increasing character power. In Primeval, for example, the rewards given out are for good storytelling only, and result in what are essentially points (listed feats) which are the score for determining the game's winner. In Rune the reward is for a well-designed adventure, and, again, counts towards winning. In other words character advencement is just one of many methods that work as rewards in a Gamist system.
Most Simulationist games actually have Gamist reward systems. They may be applied in more "realistic" fashions in some cases, but the result is usually a character who is more powerful in terms of being able to solve problems in-game. Some few simulationist games have systems for character improvement that are unlinked to player success. For example, you have some systems that require that the character be enrolled in classes, or do other things to improve themselves that make sense in the context of the game world (Traveller, forex). The sign of an "experience system" that is purely Simulationist is one that has no limitations on its use other than setting restrictions. If you can choose for your character to go to school and boost his chemistry score over a period of time, and there were no gamey limitations on this, only setting ones (like having enough money to pay for it or being able to get loans), then this is a simulation of learning, and truely simulationist. Note, that if the setting is, say, a Hong Kong Action style game, then it may be an inappropriate simulation to have it possible for characters to spend enough time in school to learn anything. In such a setting it may make more sense for characters to learn things only from old masters or from experience in fights. The point is that the learning does not come from player success, but from what happens to the character.
Truely Simulationist charater improvement, therefore, is not a reward system of itself. The Simulationist player seeks no reward from external sources. The reward sought by the simulationist player is the accurate simulation itself, and any immersion that they might attain (thus immersed it is possible to see that such improvement might be rewarding to the player as he identifies with his character who is being successful). Other rewards would not be sought by players who were solely Simulationist. Here one can see that most Sumulationist players also have Gamist and/or Narrativist tendencies as well. They still like their "unrealistic" advancement as a yardstick quite often. This example practically defines the common Sim/Gam player that I encounter all the time.
Thus GURPS, which says that players should get Experience Points for good roleplaying is rewarding the player, and allowing the player to increase the abilities of the character in a fashion that is not simulated in the game other than possibly retroactively. That is that often after spending such points the player is told that they are supposed to rationalize where the character learned what new things they have learned and how. But this is trying to reimpose the simulation back onto the Gamist mechanic. This design caters to that aforementioned Sim/Gam player.
Narrativists aren't interested in mechanics that improve characters other than it is good for the story for such improvement to occur. Most Narrativists would rather be rewarded for good play, in my limited experience, with more narrative power. This is the idea behind The Pool. The better you play, the more dice you get from the GM and the more likely it is that you can get MoVs which represent Narrative power. Hero Wars give you Hero Points that potentially represent nararative power.
Does that help, or was that all obvious?
Mike
The whole Luke/Han thing.
In Marvel (described above), not only can you develop power stunts, you can also spend Karma to increase die rolls during the game.
So while Luke is all about adding stunts to his Force power (deflect blaster, saber throw, TK, super jumping, etc.), Han is all about saving his Karma for when he needs to, say, escape detection by Imperial bounty hunters.
Rock!
Also, Karma could be channeled into a "team pool" that everyone could use, which is a nice touch AND a cool mechanic for enforcing the concept of the superhero team (bonus that your team pool is harshly penalized for individual character actions, which is why having Wolvie be a part of the X-Men is a bit of a double-edged sword).
Also, see: InSpectres. No character advancement. It's all franchise advancement.
Ahhh, but InSpectres does allow for the growth of individual characters through the use of Confessionals. In this case, it's the other players who specify new traits for your character...and that's way cool.
I kind of screwed that mechanic up when I wrote NightWatch. I hope to fix that when I rewrite it.
- Moose
Yes, but that's more development than advancement. You only have to use the character trait in THAT game to get the bonus.
Hey,
Yowch, there's that word "advancement." I knew I'd left something out in the terms-breakdown.
Is "advancement" a synonym for "improvement?" I'm pretty sure that's how Jared meant it. What do people think?
Best,
Ron
Well, I think that's what Jared implied. However, Advancement can mean a lot of things. Improvement obviously means what it sounds like. Development sounds more like character personality or depth (an often overlooked source of reward; this IS a cool part of InSpectres). Advancement could mean these things, but could also be reserved to mean social enhancement. The character becomes something else in game. This could be a promotion, or going from being a RuneQuester to a HeroQuester. That sort of thing. An actual advancement of the character along its life-plot (if such a thing can be said to exist). Levels are often referred to advancement, and given the titles that were (are?) assigned to levels, one can almost see a parrallel.
Mike
In most cases, I'm sure people use advancement the same way they use improvement, although advancement tends to imply advancing towards a set goal which may or may not have to do with the character actually improving.
Of course, different rewards create different goals to aim for. If the rewards are character improvement, the improved character at certain steps become the goals.
As I managed to incoherently mangle out in a previous thread, certain reward systems establish value systems, but do the value systems (and goals to advance towards) match the intended design?
Bankuei
I think I may have confused the issue somewhat, or rather not clarified it. I was asking if experience points are the right way to reflect character development. After all, the idea that there is a currency of improvement that you can turn into all manner of other things says a lot about a system.
Champions, with its 'all things are points' stance meant that you could use Xp to divorce your wife.
Vampire, still with its 'role not roll' nonsense, allowed you to, with a lucky bout of combat, improve your kindred lore.
Cyberpunk is one of the few games were six months of undetected postal fraud can turn you from a weenie into a black market dragoon full body conversion [ahh, those were the days...]
Is any one of these [or any others] a right and proper way to do it? I don't think so. Now, if we keep chatting about it here, that would allow some discussion as to better ways to represent experience [other than points, like the examples I mentioned in the first post], which we can take over to Design and fiddle with.
Though that sort of thing would require a proper theory behind it, although I've got something based on some stuff Jared did that might be worth talking about [in a related way] over in MMT. Interested?
Hi Drew,
I re-read this thread (which was pretty enlightening). If I'm not mistaken, the topic is specifically IMPROVEMENT, that is, the character getting better at things. Also, if I'm right, what you are after is more within-setting plausibility ("realism," or maybe "sense") for the process.
If so, then you are right that the key to this stated goal is to confine improvement to "regions" of Currency.
Historically, the most straightforward approach is offered by RuneQuest. What you succeed at, you improve in, skill by skill or whatever. (Someone on GO, a long time ago, offered the very interesting idea that one could use exactly the same method but instead base it on FAILURE, rather than success.)
Any reason why this concept wouldn't work at a broader level? Success at metagame-based mechanics or aspects of play means improvement in those things. Success at effectiveness-based mechanics or aspects of play means improvement in those things. Success at resource-based mechanics or aspects of play means improvement in those things.
One could permit more flexibility than the RuneQuest model, if you want, WITHIN each category of Currency. Therefore success at ANY aspect of Resource-type play means points to spend within that aspect alone, but on anything you want.
Nuance: I wonder whether "success" is really the issue rather than "use," mainly because one USES Resource, and generally doesn't roll/etc in order to "succeed" at it.
Is that along the lines you are thinking?
Any and all comments are requested ...
Best,
Ron
Erithromyacin,
As I said before, what is your goal? If we don't know your GNS goal, we can't answer the question. Or, in other words, there is a different answer for any particular goal that you are trying to achieve.
Short answer, no, for a Gamist game, it's just fine to have EXPs be spent on anything at all. They are a player reward, and we're not concerned particularly with "realism" in a Gamist game.
Mike
Everybody gets rewards from experiences though Mike.
Narrativists get to use whatever it is to tell 'better' stories.
Simulationists get to see improvement where it is merited.
Gamists get toys to play with.
So, taking this, and what Ron said [Yes, that is along the lines I was thinking], what should replace experience points as a mechanism of reflecting a changing character?
The RuneQuest model is one I'd meant to reference, and my Cyberpunk example ignored the fact that a broad based character can earn ludicrous amounts of xp by using different skills at different junctures. One thing that does get ignored a lot in my experience [heh] is that it rewards skill use with xp where it is critical to the advancement of the plot. [How narrativist is that?]
The goal here is to examine alternatives to experience points at a theoretical level, then analyse them within the GNS model for weaknesses. After all, as we are fast establishing, character development is a vital component of the games it seems the majority of us like to play.
To digress a little, I'm a little perturbed by Mike's suggestion that an untethered xp pool is fine for a gamist game, unless you do truly mean anything. After all, if
you could buy a village's gratitude by killing a monster, that would be really neat.
I also think that a truly successful reward/development mechanism would support all components of GNS, or at the very least allow it to be hived off into each of the camps with only a few changes.
To go back to Ron's idea that success in a region is rewarded with improvement in that region, yes, that is roughly what I was thinking.
The real question is, what forms could that improvement take? In a proper situation [and here simulation kicks in], the rewards are what you receive for doing something.
So, the immediate reward for successfuly concealing myself is that I'm not caught by The Watch, but the further reward is that I'd gain some small measure of familiarity with how to hide from Them in future, in similar circumstances. At the same time, however, They might get better at finding people in those circumstances, because they practise. After all, adversaries should be as capable of developing as anything else. Maybe there should be more games where bat guano is a controlled substance.
So can we perhaps examine the forms reward[1] can take, then move on from there?
drew
[1] In the sense of things added to a character, rather than favourable stuff, as the arm to a dragon example suggests.
I find this post very confusing, but I'll try to adress it point by point.
Quote
On 2001-11-13 12:19, erithromycin wrote:
Everybody gets rewards from experiences though Mike.
Narrativists get to use whatever it is to tell 'better' stories.
Simulationists get to see improvement where it is merited.
Gamists get toys to play with.
Are you saying that every game has an experience mechanic? That's not true. SOAP has no experience or character improvement whatsoever. It has a reward mechanic in that you can be the winner. There are lots of other games out there that lack either a reward mechanic or an experience mechanic. InSpectres, as Jared points out has a Franchise improvement system as a reward system, but no character improvement system. Or, am I missing your point?
Are you saying that players are all rewarded by their experiences during play? Well, hopefully. This is why separate reward mechanics aren't necessary to get people to play. Play itself is a reward for the player. Some games go a bit further, however and have additional rewards in the form of mechanical handouts of some sort. These are what create the value system.
Or am I still not understanding your point?
Quote
So, taking this, and what Ron said [Yes, that is along the lines I was thinking], what should replace experience points as a mechanism of reflecting a changing character?
Again, I ask, what is the problem with experience points? Is it that they are given for general character experiences in some games and that they are then allowed to be spent on things that are apparently unrelated? Would it help to call them Character Points? As many games do? Or is that still a problem because of why the reward is being handed out? Often these sorts of rewards are handed out on a per session basis with bonuses for good role-playing. These are both rewards for player activities. Certainly you can't object to those rewards being used for whatever?
Or is it simply that you want to keep player rewards in the realm of metagame, and character rewards in the realm of improvement? This has a certain logic to it, but the counter-examples I don't see as being particularly bad. I'm still foundering for what you are looking for.
Quote
The RuneQuest model is one I'd meant to reference, and my Cyberpunk example ignored the fact that a broad based character can earn ludicrous amounts of xp by using different skills at different junctures. One thing that does get ignored a lot in my experience [heh] is that it rewards skill use with xp where it is critical to the advancement of the plot. [How narrativist is that?]
Yep, I actually inccluded a reference to BRP as well iun a previous post but deleted it. Your note on the misuse of the Cyberpunk mechanic is interesting. The problem is that while the experience mechanic is intended to produce Narrativist play, it is set amongst the rest of the system which produces Simulationist play. So, no wonder the Narrativist portion of the mechanic gets forotten.
Are you saying that these are examples of good mechanics, in your opinion? Or not?
Quote
The goal here is to examine alternatives to experience points at a theoretical level, then analyse them within the GNS model for weaknesses. After all, as we are fast establishing, character development is a vital component of the games it seems the majority of us like to play.
I don't know that character development ever was NOT seen as a vital component for any developer. But what does that have to do with experience and reward systems? are you talking about the usual links between the two?
There are already tons of alternatives to experience points as rewards. Or are you suggesting an alternative in terms of character improvement? If so, BRP is an example of an alternative. Or do you feel that no system yet produced has hit upon a good system for character improvement? If so, what is wrong with them (other than your aparent desire to see "experience points" used in only a "realistic" fashion)?
Quote
To digress a little, I'm a little perturbed by Mike's suggestion that an untethered xp pool is fine for a gamist game, unless you do truly mean anything. After all, if
you could buy a village's gratitude by killing a monster, that would be really neat.
Well, I mean anything, or any subset that you wish to define. What's wrong with points I get from killing a monster being used to divorce my wife? In a Gamist game, the rewards are a PLAYER measure of success against the game, and as such can reasonably be used by the player for whatever the game would like to make available. You want to make rewards apropriate to the character task that garnered them for the player, then put in a line that says "Reward points should be spent on some reward appropriate to the task that garnered them. The GM should approve all expenditures." There, that should fix it. Though I don't see why it's at all necessary; the untethered way would be just as fun, IMO.
Quote
I also think that a truly successful reward/development mechanism would support all components of GNS, or at the very least allow it to be hived off into each of the camps with only a few changes.
Sure, go for it. I want to see a reward mechanic that rewards me for defeating creatures so I know if I'm doing well (gamist), but only does it in a realistic fashion (Simulationist), and yet also gives me a reward for chopping my own arm off because its good for the story (Narrativist).
The problem is that what you get is what a lot of games have. A mishmosh that makes no sense. Gamist games often include a bonus to experience points for "good roleplaying". Which is an appropriate Narrativist reward. But not at all Simulationist. How can a Player reward enhance my character from a Sim vantage? Can't. Try making three different systems, one for each mode, and use them together to support whichever modes you like. Much easier.
Keep in mind, though, that there are many (Ron) who would say that trying to mix yer GNS is only a source for trouble, anyhow. They (and I) would advocate a reward system that supports the general goal of the system (whichever that should be).
Quote
To go back to Ron's idea that success in a region is rewarded with improvement in that region, yes, that is roughly what I was thinking.
The real question is, what forms could that improvement take? In a proper situation [and here simulation kicks in], the rewards are what you receive for doing something.
So, the immediate reward for successfuly concealing myself is that I'm not caught by The Watch, but the further reward is that I'd gain some small measure of familiarity with how to hide from Them in future, in similar circumstances. At the same time, however, They might get better at finding people in those circumstances, because they practise. After all, adversaries should be as capable of developing as anything else. Maybe there should be more games where bat guano is a controlled substance.
From this example, it seems that you are leaning towards something BRPish?
Quote
So can we perhaps examine the forms reward[1] can take, then move on from there?
drew
[1] In the sense of things added to a character, rather than favourable stuff, as the arm to a dragon example suggests.
What forms can rewards take? That's a huge question. First, to break things down, there are metagame rewards, and then there are in-game rewards. A metagame reward is given for something like role-playing the character well. This is something that the character has no effect upon. No matter how high the character's intelligence or charisma score, he cannot actually make me play him better in RL. So this is a metagame reward. An in-game reward would be for some acomplishment of the character in the game. Like defeating a monster. If you want to reward that, the reward is an in-game reward. Whatever form the reward actually takes.
Then there is the question of the result of the reward. Often, but not always, the reward is in the form of some currency which can be traded for things. Experience points in D&D are something that can be traded in after accumulating so many for a level. CP in Hero are traded in for almost anything. The other option in general is to just give a fixed reward. This is the BRP method: a successful use of a specific skill is rewarded with a chance for that skill to increase.
The end reward can be metagame, or in-game as well. Metagame would be things like fate points, whereas in-game rewards include such things as character improvement. One could imagine other in-game rewards like changes to the world that the player wanted to see, etc.
I'm going to guess that what you want is rewards for metagame reasonms that can be used as metagame power, and in-game rewards that can be used to purchase things closely related to the activity that gained them. Is that close? Or am I still way off?
Mike
Mike,
One thing that hasn't been articulated, but HAS been communicated subtly between Drew and myself on this thread, is that Drew would like a Simulationist-style improvement system, sub-class realism. Therefore, the priority is "in-world makes-sense," in terms of activity performed during play being applied, linearly, to exactly how a character improves in any way.
That gives us two options, basically.
1) RuneQuest - do a given skill, improve in that skill.
2) GURPS - do anything, improve anything (else)
What Drew was looking for, I think, was a way to re-frame these options in terms of Currency - and therefore to avoid some of the pitfalls of each one, ie, overly narrow and a tad boring vs. overly broad and lacking plausibility, respectively.
I'm pretty sure my solution worked for him. That leaves YOU as the only unsatisfied person on the thread ... and if I'm not mistaken, clarifying Drew's original position/query ought to have fixed that. I hope ...
Best,
Ron
Seems too simple. Is Ron right, E? There still seems to be a queston left unanswered out there. Or is that where I'm mistaken?
Mike
Perhaps what we should be looking at is a family of related skills or abilities that grow as a group instead of simply a single skill. An old chinese story tells of an archer who learned his trade first by basket weaving for 3 years, watching a candle burn every night for 3 years, and watching his wife's loom every night for 3 years. This developed his wrists and arms, ability to focus on a still target, and finally on a moving target. While none of these skills were directly a part of archery, they provided a solid foundation for him to be an archer.
So, while you practice a skill or use an attribute, the points or growth could happen in a group of related areas. This is a fairly realistic mechanic, perhaps a little more realistic than Runequest mechanics(Dancers and Gymnasts are terribly strong...)
Bankuei
While none of these skills were directly a part of archery, they provided a solid foundation for him to be an archer
See also: Karate Kid.
:smile:
I just wanted to chime in with a random thought about character improvement and rewards. I see several types:
Development: The character acquires things (personality traits, material objects, personal contacts) that he can use as resources in later games.
Advancement: The character increases his ability or gains new aptitudes (prestige classes, levels, the ABILITY to gain new abilities).
Investment: The player now has "grist for the mill" for use in later games. Unlike a game where characters are expendable, the player adopts a more protective "my guy" role over the character and it may soon become the subject of the dreaded "Let me tell you about my character..." stories. I think this can happen on its own but is definitely bolsters by Developments and Advancements.
While none of these skills were directly a part of archery, they provided a solid foundation for him to be an archer
See also: Karate Kid.
:smile:
I just wanted to chime in with a random thought about character improvement and rewards. I see several types:
Development: The character acquires things (personality traits, material objects, personal contacts) that he can use as resources in later games. Finding a +1 magic sword is Development.
Advancement: The character increases his ability or gains new aptitudes (prestige classes, levels, skills, abilities and the ABILITY to gain new abilities -- like lowering your Generation equals a higher blood pool in Vampire). Enchanting your magic sword to be a +1 flaming sword is Advancement.
Investment: The player now has "grist for the mill" for use in later games. Unlike a game where characters are expendable, the player adopts a more protective "my guy" role over the character and it may soon become the subject of the dreaded "Let me tell you about my character..." stories. I think this can happen on its own but is definitely bolsters by Developments and Advancements. Killing the bad guy with your magic sword and giving it the name "Demon-Breaker" is Investment.
Make sense?
Yep, the HK action flick training method is a fun one. Like in Feng Shui where to gain an ability you have to describe a training montage of this sort to explain exactly how the character improves. This, of course, is more Gamist than Sim as it simply allows points to be spent on anything and then uses the retroactive method to explain the expenditures. D&D (1ed, possibly others) uses the same method requiring the character to go off and train before gaining levels. One could, again, caveat that ponts earned this way should be recorded for how they were earned and then the GM could oversee expenditures. I suggest that this happens a lot, anyhow. D&D3e is the worst violator that I can think of allowing you to buy a level of Sorcerer with experience gained only as a fighter. As a Gamist game, though, it works just fine.
As far as related skills, this is always a tricky one. Rolemaster allows the player to buy either individual skills or categories of skills (with less result, but broader area of effect). GURPs does this a little by having skills default to others, but not very effectively. Hero allows the purchase of stuff that is between a stat and a skill to enhance categories of skills. Lots of options there.
Mike
>>Yep, the HK action flick training method is a fun one. Like in Feng Shui where to gain an ability you have to describe a training montage of this sort to explain exactly how the character improves. This, of course, is more Gamist than Sim as it simply allows points to be spent on anything and then uses the retroactive method to explain the expenditures.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of related improvement as opposed to a free for all. Improvement in certain skills naturally leads to improvement in others, or attributes. Ballet, ice skating, and gymnastics all develop similar levels of balance and muscles, while dancing, martial arts, and wrestling develop body familiarity, timing and distancing. Naturally not all of the skills carryover into the others completely, but there can be a gestalt effect.
Likewise, there's not too many surgeons with shaky hands. The development of a skill also develops an attribute. Perhaps attributes are the "gestalt" effect in most games, since if those are raised, all related skills also improve.
Of course, this depends on how you're approaching the improvement process. From a Gamist view, it only matters that points/experience= better abilities. From the Simulationist view, the above ideas make sense, and also allow more freedom than simply practicing that skill alone for improvement. The Narrativist view would be that a change in character concept, or dramatic breakthrough("Now I understand the hidden meaning of rising dragon fist technique!").
Since the character improvement is the way 99% of the games handle characters changing, or growing, and that reward system encourages certain actions, what do we think is an important basis for reward? I do notice that most games give a learning curve of increasing difficulty the higher up you go, which may be true of real life, but is it necessary for less realistic games?
Bankuei
>>Yep, the HK action flick training method is a fun one. Like in Feng Shui where to gain an ability you have to describe a training montage of this sort to explain exactly how the character improves. This, of course, is more Gamist than Sim as it simply allows points to be spent on anything and then uses the retroactive method to explain the expenditures.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of related improvement as opposed to a free for all. Improvement in certain skills naturally leads to improvement in others, or attributes. Ballet, ice skating, and gymnastics all develop similar levels of balance and muscles, while dancing, martial arts, and wrestling develop body familiarity, timing and distancing. Naturally not all of the skills carryover into the others completely, but there can be a gestalt effect.
Likewise, there's not too many surgeons with shaky hands. The development of a skill also develops an attribute. Perhaps attributes are the "gestalt" effect in most games, since if those are raised, all related skills also improve.
Of course, this depends on how you're approaching the improvement process. From a Gamist view, it only matters that points/experience= better abilities. From the Simulationist view, the above ideas make sense, and also allow more freedom than simply practicing that skill alone for improvement. The Narrativist view would be that a change in character concept, or dramatic breakthrough("Now I understand the hidden meaning of rising dragon fist technique!").
Since the character improvement is the way 99% of the games handle characters changing, or growing, and that reward system encourages certain actions, what do we think is an important basis for reward? I do notice that most games give a learning curve of increasing difficulty the higher up you go, which may be true of real life, but is it necessary for less realistic games?
Bankuei
First of all, is there something wiggy with this forum? I've seen a few double postings [this is going to be one too, I just know it].
Secondly, I'm beginning to think that Ron's psychic.
Thirdly, I'll apologise for where these posts have been lacking in clarity and structure. I tend to write these as I think them, and I tend not to think in straight lines.
Right, onto the responses:
Sorry Mike, I may have occluded the issue. Not all games have experience mechanics, but all games, if they are in any way shape or form deserving of that appelation, produce experiences. The 'mechanic', as't'were, may be no more than a memory, so yes, you are missing my point, but it wasn't a clear one.
To answer your questions:
What are experience points - what thing, in nature, or physics, or metaphysics, do they represent? Once you have an answer, stick to it. IME, no games have an answer, or stick to it consistently.
Changing the name of a thing does not change a thing.
Roleplaying rewards in metagame, and character rewards in improvement.
This, it think, is what I'm after, but with an addition.
What is the interface between player and character?
[apart from a whole 'nother kettle of fish]
Is there a way to reward that too? Or improve it?
The mechanics in RuneQuest and Cyberpunk work, to an extent, but as you pointed out leave gaps that affect the way in which they are used.
Character development is experience/reward system.
One is the change of a character over time, the other is the mechanism by which it takes place. Goals for character development MUST be reflected in e/r systems.
It's not, I suppose, that e/r systems tend to be wrong, or that they are not 'realistic', but as such integral parts of a game that they often fail to reflect the ethos and intent of the system of which they are a part.
Having just reread it - Good roleplaying rewards are inherently narrativist? Doesn't that defeat the whole thing?
Ron's suggestion goes someway there, but I think I was looking for a more concrete system, so I'm going to go off and work on something before throwing it into game design to see what chews on it.
In response to everything else -
Yes, I think there should be some way of reflecting the rope/candle/mouthwash - better headwaiter angle of it all, but I'm not sure what.
No, I'm not sure that there's a need for exponential curves, except as a game balance issue.
And to cause more trouble -
What falls into the scope of 'in-game rewards' and what are the potentials for 'metagame' rewards.
drew