[Kathanaksaya] Puntitive mechanics: yay or nay?

[Green]

For a while now, I've been toying with how to utilize the idea of Fading in Kathanaksaya, but I've been unable to determine something that could really work.  

Part of my initial reluctance has to do with my attitude towards punitive mechanics in RPGs.  By temperament, I prefer incentives and bonuses to doing things a certain way instead of penalties for not doing things a certain way.  Much of this comes from my own personal experience, where a difference in style and focus on the part of one or more players is taken as being uncooperative.  However, the more I look at and think about my game, the more I realize that I'll have to do something with the idea of Fading if I'm going to keep it as a force in the setting.  Here is what I came up with:

Fading
Whenever a player consistently neglects one or more of his character's elements, the Narrator may decide to take away those elements.  This reduces that character's SP by the value of the element taken away.  Fading does not affect abstracts and concretes until the highest abstract rating is greater than a character's SP total.  If this happens, reduce the abstract rating to the SP total.  If SP continue to decrease, this rating decreases also.  Unlike SP spent for bidding, these lost SP can never be replenished except in very special cases.  Reversing the effects of Fading can itself be a story.

Example: Jon has Ruael's passions for boxing, folklore, and tactical simulation games, but in the past 5 sessions, he has indulged none of these, despite ample opportunity to do so.  Sue, the Narrator in Jon's game, docks the SP Ruael has due to his passions (5 SP), reducing Ruael's total SP to 42.

Unless Fading is a central aspect of the story, no character should lose more than 5 SP per session, preferably fewer.  Running out of SP due to Fading is much like losing all SP when bidding or affecting other changes, but its effects are permanent.  Most Faded characters simply vanish, never making another appearance in the story.  Others come to an untimely end or simply wander aimlessly with no memories or desires or idea of who they are.
[/list:u]
The larger question is whether punitive mechanics in game design are desirable, particularly penalties based upon a player's performance during the game.  Can something positive come from mechanics designed to penalize players for doing things the wrong way or neglecting to do things the right way?  Are there elegant, intuitive ways to design punitive mechanics for a particular game?  To what extent are punitive mechanics necessary for ensuring that the core elements of the game are invoked and/or adhered to?

[Vaettyr]

Well, in response to the larger question, I don't really think punitive mechanics are a really good idea at large. In some contexts they might work, but in others I feel that they can be very counter-productive. If they are used, though, I think that what should be punished is the 'doing something wrong' part, not the 'neglecting to do something right' part. I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that if someone wants to play a game for fun, it would be much better to encourage and reward them to play it one way, rather than to discourage and punish them if they don't play it that way.

As this relates to the idea of Fading, I think that as a mechanic it's not necessarily a bad idea, but I think that the implementation could use some work. The current implementation seems to convey the idea that "every part of your character is important to the story all of the time". I know that's a bit extreme, but that's the general feeling I get when I read it.

I think two alternate ways to approach that would be to offer bonuses the more they explored the different elements of character during play, or to limit Fading for when they do something that goes strongly against one of their elements. Personally I'd prefer the first, but I think being punished for not doing something could really bring down the tone of the game.

[TonyLB]

You can encourage people to explore all of their aspects, by decreeing that an aspect is temporarily reduced one level (or whatever) each time it's used.  Then the aspects become a broad resource that the player is spending.  They benefit from spending absolutely everything.  

They'll engineer opportunities to use even their Underwater Basket Weaving skill if it helps them to keep their big guns fresh and powerful for later use.

On the punitive mechanics, I agree with Vaettyr that it is generally easier to punish sins of commission than sins of omission.  But I think that's because the system will get screwed up very quickly if the GM is subjectively deciding when to punish.  It's an unstructured drama system (i.e. "Whatever the GM says goes") and they're really bad news.  Everyone will be happier if there are objective criteria ("If you make this roll and fail then you are punished in this manner").

[Jack Aidley]

How about this less-punitive alternative: when a characteristic is reduced through inactivity, the player gets the character points spent on it (or the analogue for however you're changing the skill levels) back to spend on things they have been using.

That way it's less like a punishment and more like a shift of focus.

Or, perhaps better still, the GM can offer bonus advancements on oft-used areas but the player has to pay by reducing a skill in a rarely used area. Similar overall effect, more positive outlook and more player driven.

[Green]

You can encourage people to explore all of their aspects, by decreeing that an aspect is temporarily reduced one level (or whatever) each time it's used. Then the aspects become a broad resource that the player is spending. They benefit from spending absolutely everything.

They'll engineer opportunities to use even their Underwater Basket Weaving skill if it helps them to keep their big guns fresh and powerful for later use.

The only problem with that is that neglecting abstracts is not the basis for Fading, but the core elements of the character (such as history, relationships, desires, strengths and weaknesses, and conflicts).  It's one thing not to show your skill with basketweaving, but if you neglect your character's goals, significant relationships, etc., what should happen then?  If you keep the SP, you sustain narrative power despite not putting any focus on the most narrative aspects of the character.  If you simply deduct SP based on the neglected element, it comes across as saying that every element of a character is important at all times.

I already have a mechanic set up to act as an incentive to include various character elements during play, which is replenishing SP.  However, I may have to refine things a bit more, perhaps giving back spent SP equal to the point value of the element in question each time that element is invoked.  Of course, characters can't regain more SP than their character's SP total, but it's designed to assist rather than dominate play.

How about this less-punitive alternative: when a characteristic is reduced through inactivity, the player gets the character points spent on it (or the analogue for however you're changing the skill levels) back to spend on things they have been using.

That way it's less like a punishment and more like a shift of focus.

I'm having a little trouble understanding how this applies to Kathanaksaya.    SP, abstracts, and concretes don't work that way.

Or, perhaps better still, the GM can offer bonus advancements on oft-used areas but the player has to pay by reducing a skill in a rarely used area. Similar overall effect, more positive outlook and more player driven.

Again, I'm not sure how you see Kathanaksaya working that way.  SP are not exactly spent on skills and abilities.  Those things are completely separate from the character elements.  

I believe the area where there seems to be the most understanding from all the responses is confusing character elements with abstracts and concretes.  I may have to rewrite that section of character creation just to make this clear, but I'll reiterate.  The Fading doesn't come into play just because you don't use your abstracts and conretes enough.  The abstracts and concretes are meant solely as a boon, not an essential aspect of your character.  Hence, the option of using them in the first place.  What I mean as character elements are things like a character's psyche, history, relationships, and drives.  It is these things which grant SP, not abstracts and concretes.

Put more concretely, what should become of the SP gained from goals which a character never pursues, passions a character doesn't indulge, players not responding to events that speak to their characters' motives, conflicts a character never seeks to resolve, personality traits your character never displays, etc.?  My basic concern is how to encourage players to really work with these character elements instead of just having them.  As a less desirable alternative, how do you discourage players from creating characters with elements they never intend to make use of?

I thought that Fading might have been a way to do so, but I don't believe it is the only way or that the mechanic I've drafted is the best way to go about it.

[GregS]

While I have always liked the idea of fading, I think applying it to character stats/skills is a bad idea.  1) I think it will invariably lead to conflict as to "how long is too long" to not use a skill.  2)  It assumes that a character is doing nothing to practice anything during the "down time".  3)  The rate of regression for different skills would/should vary wildly.

If you want to have a regressive stat, which I'm certainly fine with, I would apply it to a singular/central concept that the players know they have to keep an eye on.  I.e.  in the new World of Darkness rules players have a Morality stat.  Doing amoral activities cause the stat to drop.  You could do something similar, where a character issue is flexibly diminished if they do/fail to perform given ritual/rite/concept/etc.

[Vaettyr]

Originally posted by TonyLB
But I think that's because the system will get screwed up very quickly if the GM is subjectively deciding when to punish. It's an unstructured drama system (i.e. "Whatever the GM says goes") and they're really bad news. Everyone will be happier if there are objective criteria ("If you make this roll and fail then you are punished in this manner").

I couldn't agree with this statement more. As it stands right now, some groups would be fine with the Fading mechanic. If their GM tells them they have been ignoring some element of their character, and thus they no longer have it, they'll take it in stride. Others, however, are not.

I think what this mechanic gets at more is what types of Creative Agendas you expect or want this game to be used to satisfy. At least I think so, someone smack me if I'm getting way out there on this. This game seems to be written from a very strong Narrativist perspective, and people playing the game to satisfy that agenda are going to be very pleased. The problem I think you're perceiving (and hoping Fading will correct), is that this game can also accomodate a Gamist perspective. The core mechanic of it itself seems rather Gamist to me. All players have relative amounts of resources they use to affect the game in their favor. A Gamist will look at that resource, see how to get as much of it as possible (and thus improve their ability to meet Challenges), and do so. Once they have that resource, their not going to think about it beyond how they're going to use it, and therein lies the problem.

I think the current solution isn't going to solve the problem so much as drive some types of players away from the game altogether. I think to correct this without altering the mechanic on a base level, you need to examine how it works. After character creation (aside from Abstracts and Concretes), players aren't really encouraged by the rules to pay much attention to what they put on the character sheet. Abstracts and Concretes do this very well, however. Applying this concept to the entire game could get tedious if not handled well, but if you want to encourage players to portray elements of their characters I think this is the way to do it. Maybe every time they raise a bid they need to tie in a new element of their character. This may be difficult, but no element of a character will likely be ignored for long.

[Shreyas Sampat]

As a less desirable alternative, how do you discourage players from creating characters with elements they never intend to make use of?

Reward them for using elements, not for just making them up.

[Green]

A lot of these ideas are very thoughtful and inspiring.  Thanks.

The consensus thus far seems to be that penalizing characters for the players' omissions is not a good idea.  Therefore, I won't go further into a mechanic for Fading.  I might have it as an optional rule, though.  

Though I had a hunch that the carrot works better than the stick, I am now convinced that the right way to go is by giving incentives for actively including various character elements during play.  Off the top of my head, here are a few things I came up with:

1.  When invoking character elements during play, you replenish SP equal to the element invoked.  So, if a player roleplays a character quirk, he gets 1 SP back.  However, revealing and indulging in a character's passions rejuvenates 5 SP.  I'll have to rethink how frequently SP are replenished during a story.  I typically had SP renewed once per session (which, during play, was both more and less than enough).  I am reluctant at best to have formal scene-changing mechanics, but I do have to define exactly how frequently SP should be refreshed.  I may revise the game so that instead of once per session, SP are renewed once per chapter (which would correspond pretty neatly with once per session).  However, renewing SP once per act might be better so that replenishing SP becomes more central  rather than an afterthought.  This would, of course, necessitate doing a little explaining of dramatic structure, but hopefully it's time well-spent.

2.  When invoking character elements during a bid, the amount of the bid is increased proportionate to the value of the element.  Actively involving a character's drives thus provides a significant boon to the player.  As with abstracts and concretes, you only have to pay SP in excess of that element's value plus the abstract rating and concrete bonus used.  The bonus to this is that the abstracts and concretes can truly be optional instead of required.  The downside is that this may overcomplicate things.  

As an example, let's have Sir Hero.  As one of his character elements, the code of chivalry is a huge part of his psyche (valued at 5 SP), and his lady fair is one of his most signficant relationships (valued at 4 SP).  During the course of his story, let's say that he is attacked by a fierce ogre, and his lady fair is taken captive to the ogre's dwelling.  Sir Hero's code requires that he embark upon a quest to save the damsel.  By the time he confronts the ogre, he is ready to issue his challenge.  The player opens a bid at 19 points (10 points initially; 4 points for this challenge involving his lady fair, one of his relationships; 5 points for this challenge calling upon the code of chivalry Sir Hero adheres to, which is based in his psyche).  If Sir Hero wins the bid, he only has to pay SP in excess of 9 points (minimum 1).  If I were to use abstracts and concretes, they would add to the bid as well without requiring expending SP.

3.  A combination of the two.  Therefore, in addition to helping with bidding, actively invoking character elements also replenishes SP during play instead of at the start or at the end.

[Green]

No thoughts or ideas to share?