[Insurrection]GM rewards.

[MJGraham]

I'm toying with the idea of having GM control of a scene purchased through a bidding system in which any player can become the GM if they are willing and able to pay the costs of assuming the mantle of GM. What I would like to do is have a reward system in place for good GMing. At the end of each game session players are allowed to reward other players for good GMing. Pretty much in the same way that traditional RPG's have GM's rewarding (usually experience points) for good roleplaying except its the GM that is rewarded by the players. The form that rewards will come in is points which can be used to purchase GM control of a scene, i.e. the better a person GM's the more points they are rewarded with which can later be used to buy GM control of a scene.

I'm pretty certain that this isn't a revolutionary idea and other games have had similar ideas. What I would like to know is if other game designers have experimented with GM rewards and in what ways it has been problematic?

[apeiron]

Any specific games in mind?

What about games with one GM (most games)?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Prime Time Adventures (PTA) by Matt Wilson has a strong, simple system whereby any participant (GM or player) can give another "fan mail" for something particularly cool, which can be cashed in for bonus dice/cards later. Unlike what you're talking about, PTA has a single person who's always the GM, but each player gets a chance to frame scenes, introduce characters and plot elements, etc.

Universalis by Mike Holmes and Ralph Mazza, and Capes by Tony Lower-Basch, are both "GM-ful" games where every participant has equal authority to introduce new characters (heroic, villainous, or otherwise) and setting elements, modify existing characters and setting elements (including other peoples' creations), set up ("frame") and end scenes, and set the stakes for conflicts. Both of them rely on some kind of "economy" whereby it costs you resources to introduce something into the story -- and they encourage conflict, rather than consensus, by having bidding wars where both winner and loser often walk away with more resources than they started, putting them at an advantage over people who stayed out of the fight. I've not played Universalis, but I'm very familiar with Capes and hang out with Tony and his cool family fairly often, so I can go into that more if you'd like.

There's a whole forum on each of these games at the Forge. The critical thing I'd point out is that none of these three games has a rewards system that operates in the traditional "okay, it's the end of the session, let's hand out XPs now" way. All of them require you to reward another participant's coolness right now, when the coolness is happening -- which means the incentive system, and the conditioning towards desired behaviors, is tremendously powerful.

[MJGraham]

Any specific games in mind?

What about games with one GM (most games)?

The game in mind is the one I'm in the latter stages of developing. At any given moment there will always be only one GM, but the responsibility of being the GM can change from one person to another. It's entirely possible for one person to GM an entire session or even several sessions without losing his or her position as GM. It's also possible for several people to be the GM in one game session, but never at the same time (GMing is consecutive and never similtaneous responsiblity, i.e. player X is the GM then player Y is the GM. Never Player Y and Player X are the GMs)

Prime Time Adventures (PTA) by Matt Wilson has a strong, simple system whereby any participant (GM or player) can give another "fan mail" for something particularly cool, which can be cashed in for bonus dice/cards later. Unlike what you're talking about, PTA has a single person who's always the GM, but each player gets a chance to frame scenes, introduce characters and plot elements, etc.

Universalis by Mike Holmes and Ralph Mazza, and Capes by Tony Lower-Basch, are both "GM-ful" games where every participant has equal authority to introduce new characters (heroic, villainous, or otherwise) and setting elements, modify existing characters and setting elements (including other peoples' creations), set up ("frame") and end scenes, and set the stakes for conflicts. Both of them rely on some kind of "economy" whereby it costs you resources to introduce something into the story -- and they encourage conflict, rather than consensus, by having bidding wars where both winner and loser often walk away with more resources than they started, putting them at an advantage over people who stayed out of the fight. I've not played Universalis, but I'm very familiar with Capes and hang out with Tony and his cool family fairly often, so I can go into that more if you'd like.

There's a whole forum on each of these games at the Forge. The critical thing I'd point out is that none of these three games has a rewards system that operates in the traditional "okay, it's the end of the session, let's hand out XPs now" way. All of them require you to reward another participant's coolness right now, when the coolness is happening -- which means the incentive system, and the conditioning towards desired behaviors, is tremendously powerful.

I like the idea of "coolness right now." For my game Insurrection players are rewarded during play with Defiance Points which make their characters more effective in a "coolness right now" kind of way.It is these Defiance Points that a player can use to bid/purchase GM control of a scene. Since the characters are rewarded during play I can see any reason to not reward the GM in precisely the same manner.

The cost of becoming the GM is having the spend points which reduce your characters effectiveness. Players earn Defiance Points by successfully overcoming external and internal challenges. The Defiance Point reward for players are set amounts relating to the difficulty of the challenge overcome by the character. The more difficult the challenge the greater the reward. GM's will earn Defiance Points for good GMing. I feel I should have some kind of set reward for good GMing (whatever that means). But I'm worried that I'll be stepping on the toes of the players. I'm just the game designer, surely it's not my job to dictate what other people should be looking for in a GM. That's why I'm avoiding rewards for good roleplaying (it's just too subjective and once again its not my job to tell people what makes a good roleplayer). But I don't see how I can avoid that subjectivity for GM rewards and perhaps I shouldn't. I suspect the problem isn't subjectivity, but who should hold the right to subjectively judge another player/GM  . Perhaps what I should do is have a system whereby player/GM can give to another player/GM a reward in the form of additional Defiance Points for whatever arbitrary reason they want as long as its done in a "coolness right now" kind of way.

[Eric J. Boyd]

But I'm worried that I'll be stepping on the toes of the players. I'm just the game designer, surely it's not my job to dictate what other people should be looking for in a GM. That's why I'm avoiding rewards for good roleplaying (it's just too subjective and once again its not my job to tell people what makes a good roleplayer). But I don't see how I can avoid that subjectivity for GM rewards and perhaps I shouldn't. I suspect the problem isn't subjectivity, but who should hold the right to subjectively judge another player/GM  . Perhaps what I should do is have a system whereby player/GM can give to another player/GM a reward in the form of additional Defiance Points for whatever arbitrary reason they want as long as its done in a "coolness right now" kind of way.

I think you've talked yourself through the problem quite nicely. You, as the game designer, don't have to worry about what subjective measure a group will use to evaluate what's cool in play, just state that coolness gets rewarded by x number of Defiance Points. Then let each group determine how that rule will shake out in execution. Trust the players to recognize that something is cool when they see it.

So besides bidding for GM'ing duties for a scene, do Defiance Points have other uses in play? If so, balancing the utility of these various uses could be important to getting the kind of play you want to emerge.

[MJGraham]

So besides bidding for GM'ing duties for a scene, do Defiance Points have other uses in play? If so, balancing the utility of these various uses could be important to getting the kind of play you want to emerge.

Originally my roleplaying system was cluttered with long lists of attributes, advantages, skills, and other miscellanous roleplaying paraphenalia. I was trying to create a realistic roleplaying system and I had become so wrapped up in it that I completely forgot that I was supposed to be making a game. Since then I've stripped down the system and leant the imprtance of doing more with less. This is where my explanation of Defiance comes in...

When Defiance is not being used to bid for GM duties it is a tool for the players which allows them to make rerolls during play. The more Defiance a character accumulates during play the more rerolls he or she possesses. I believe it may be what's referred to a resource improving character effectiveness. I'm still learning my terminology so please forgive me if I don't always use it correctly. The idea behind Defiance as a character resource is that as the game progresses the characters can increase their Defiance and with it face even greater challenges.

For the characters Defiance is life, vitality, strength, will, hope, conviction, determination... whatever makes them protagonists. Total loss of Defiance can result in character death but it can equally result in the character losing hope, having a change of heart, going insane, or simply giving up... anything that causes the character to no longer have an impact in the game as a protagonist. 

Where possible I want to keep the "do more with less" strategy I've recently adopted. Thus my desire to have a reward system for both GMs and players which utilize the same resource, i.e. I don't particularly want to have a seperate resource reward for good GMing and good roleplaying if I can do it with just one.

[Eric J. Boyd]

Ok, I see where you're going with Defiance Points now. My suggestion is that in order for players to want to bid for GM'ing duties for a scene, GM'ing has to present the possibility, but not the guarantee, of a reward that is worth the expenditure of Defiance Points. Balancing that out is going to take some playtesting. The potential reward doesn't have to be solely receiving Defiance Points (maybe getting to GM the scene allows you to move the story where you want it to go and make your future non-GMing scenes easier/more rewarding as well), but there needs to be enough Defiance Points on the line to make it worthwhile.

[MJGraham]

Ok, I see where you're going with Defiance Points now. My suggestion is that in order for players to want to bid for GM'ing duties for a scene, GM'ing has to present the possibility, but not the guarantee, of a reward that is worth the expenditure of Defiance Points. Balancing that out is going to take some playtesting. The potential reward doesn't have to be solely receiving Defiance Points (maybe getting to GM the scene allows you to move the story where you want it to go and make your future non-GMing scenes easier/more rewarding as well), but there needs to be enough Defiance Points on the line to make it worthwhile.

Aside from the possibility of being rewarded with Defiance Points, I envision that winning GM duties will give the person who is GM the opportunity to set the current scene and express the consequences of the characters action or inaction and by doing so guide (but not direct) the story in certain direction.

For example a GM could describe a scene in which the characters are outside a heavily guarded mansion in which one of their friends is being held hostage. The GM cannot say how the characters respond to that situation. He can't say that the characters will attempt to rescue their friend. He cannot tell the players that they must fight the guards. The only thing he can do until the characters act is provide the opportunities for action. Once the characters choose their actions he can decide the difficulty that each action poses for the characters but not whether those actions succeed or fail. Success or failure depends on the fortune of the characters, e.g. dice rolling. It is only after the characters fortune has been tested that the GM can state the consequence of a successful or failed action.

The GM is also limited in only being able to add new information to the story. He or she cannot undo what has happened already.  To use the example above when a new GM takes over he or she couldn't say that the guarded mansion is really an empty church. He or she could say that one of the characters spots an open window, but only on the provision that a previous GM didn't state that all the windows in the mansion were closed.