Lazy Reward System & the missing CA

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I recently picked up BESM D20, and looked into the reward system.  You have the industry standard rewards for "overcoming a challenge" and "good roleplaying", both of which are so loosely defined that any CA could fit into it.  It seems like the first bit is a holdover from gamist play, and the second is a open door for either Sim or Nar to get in.  

Now, BESM D20 isn't the only game, nor particularly new at this, but seems to be part of a larger and older trend towards reward systems that basically say, "Um, yeah, reward whatever you want..."  I don't have any particularly insightful thoughts about this, but it doesn't seem to be an intelligent move towards flexibilty that many games attempt to aim for, but rather a simple laziness in design and probable fear of alienating certain crowds by properly loading up the reward system for a particular CA.

And, from personal and anecdotal experience, it seems games with reward systems like this, tend to get modified(aka, rebuilt from the ground up), all the time.

Now, the questions I'd like to ask are:

-Does anyone have any idea historically when and how this phenomenon started?  The first game with "super neutral" reward I can recall is Vampire...
-Does anyone have any ideas why this default has been taken besides simple laziness?
-Is there any ways in which folks could(or already have had) have multiple reward systems included in their games for different CAs?

Chris

[Halzebier]

Does anyone have any idea historically when and how this phenomenon started?  The first game with "super neutral" reward I can recall is Vampire...

Vampire also awards Willpower points based on whether you manage to play to your character's outlook. E.g., a "builder" gets Willpower for creating and maintaing a social network, whereas a "rebel" (or whatever) gets Willpower for defying authority. This part of the reward system doesn't seem neutral.

Regards,

Hal

[M. J. Young]

I haven't seen BESM D20, but I've seen that adaptation used quite a bit in old D&D play. The thing is, it doesn't really break out of being gamist.

There's a glaring example, I think, in the design of the Shukenja in OAD&D's Oriental Adventures book. This character isn't supposed to kill; he does get experience points for killing non-sentient monsters (I think) and for gathering treasure, and these help advance him in spell power, combat ability (he must study a martial arts style), and hit points. He also gets experience points for using his spells to help non-associated non-player characters--an effort to reward beneficence (all shukenja are required to be good; they are the Oriental cleric variant). The problem is, using your spells to help others is a path toward what? It makes you more powerful and more survivable.

Thus what BESM seems to be doing is giving out rewards for "good role playing" that buy you greater in-game power. It becomes another level of gamist play: act the character well enough to earn the praise of the referee in the form of power-building points.

It's an extremely common "house rule" that appears again and again in gamist games where the referee is unhappy with the combat paradigm, but all it really does is increase the color and characterization. It does little or nothing for creative agendum.

--M. J. Young

[myripad]

It's an extremely common "house rule" that appears again and again in gamist games where the referee is unhappy with the combat paradigm, but all it really does is increase the color and characterization. It does little or nothing for creative agendum.

--M. J. Young

But so long as the group recognizes this and is only using a subjective reward system as an incentive for the players to act in character, it's valid, right? I don't see how this could be considered an "easy way out" more than any other reward system so long as the group is aware of what it is capable of and what it isn't.

Of course, in many cases, the referee could use a subjective system that rewards "good roleplaying" as a way to railroad the players -- if the characters actions don't suit the referee's vision of the game, the players receive no rewards. I could imagine it being a fairly subtle form of railroading, so long as the players remained convinced that their referee's idea of what "good roleplaying" is happens to be universally accepted by all veteran roleplayers.

[contracycle]

It's an extremely common "house rule" that appears again and again in gamist games where the referee is unhappy with the combat paradigm, but all it really does is increase the color and characterization. It does little or nothing for creative agendum.

Perhaps, but by encrouraging charectreisation and colour, the SIS is reinforced and validated, which may well improve the experience of play even if not perhaps directly via a CA (although Sik would seem best served by such).

[Bankuei]

Hi MJ,

Your example doesn't quite fit, because if I recall correctly, the old system gave a somewhat solid answer on what earned those xps, such as casting a spell to heal a person was worth something like 50 xp/level of the spell or something like that.  It tied a direct reward to a direct action.  

Likewise Riddle of Steel and Sorcerer also tie rewards directly to actions, such as playing out SAs or resolving Kickers.  A player intent on fast improvement will go hard for the reward, and actually push for Nar play accordingly.  That is why Ron has pushed that Nar and Gamist play aren't that far apart.  

In the example I'm talking about, "Good roleplaying" is not really defined to any specific action.  This pretty much means it could range from:

-Adding Color to the game, such as nifty one liners to go with monster bashing
-Fulfilling Illusionist or Sim requirements and helping keep the "immersion" or "reality" going
-Making meaningful decisions in terms of addressing Premise

Again, I'm looking for any historical examples of where this has started, if there are any good design reasons for doing this, and if anyone has set up alternative reward systems in a single game for different CA needs?

Chris

[Peter Nordstrand]

Howdy,

I don't have my copy readily available, but I think Dragonquest used to hand out xp partly based on "roleplaying" or somesuch...

[rafial]

I recall that Champions pretty much advocated a standard 2-3 points per game award.  That's how we wound up playing anyway, that was early-mid 80's.

[Mike Holmes]

Heck, I think they mentioned "roleplaying rewards" in AD&D1E. Or am I imagining that? If not, then I too go with Champions as likely the first to have such neutral rewards. Probably turn out to be some small title, however.

It's not laziness at all. It's not knowing what else to do. Let's say that you realize that EXP support Gamism, and you don't want that. Well, what do you do? You reward attendance. It doesn't support any CA, no, but in not supporting Gamism a GM who doesn't want that, can drift out of Gamism more easily at least.

It's simply a step in the overall historical Gamism - > Simulationism - > Narrativism history. One of the earliest steps on the path to simulationism. Which, after all, is hard to make a reward system for.

Mike

[DannyK]

-Does anyone have any ideas why this default has been taken besides simple laziness?

Most gamers (and game developers too, I bet) don't pay much heed to GNS considerations.  From a marketing standpoint, there's an advantage in fudging the distinctions in play styles, so that a game will appeal to a larger pool of gamers.  

Take Vampire, for instance.  I'm not sure how the GNS gurus have categorized it, but it seems designed to appeal to G,N, and S sensibilities.  I've personally seen in played in both Gamist and Narrativist modes (sometimes in the same game, with jarring effects).  

You can argue about how Vampire, and the Storyteller mechanics, facilitate one mode of play or another, but that's a different issue.

[rafial]

Heck, I think they mentioned "roleplaying rewards" in AD&D1E. Or am I imagining that? If not, then I too go with Champions as likely the first to have such neutral rewards. Probably turn out to be some small title, however.

If we are pondering games with reward systems that incentivize nothing, we might also consider Traveller, which had no method of character improvement (okay, there were some vague rules on training and education) other than to gather stuff within the game.

[Lxndr]

Same with Everway.  "Oh, whenever the GM feels like it, you get a Boon, which is anything the GM decrees, from attribute bonuses to a piece of string."

[Bankuei]

Hi Danny,

Most gamers (and game developers too, I bet) don't pay much heed to GNS considerations. From a marketing standpoint, there's an advantage in fudging the distinctions in play styles, so that a game will appeal to a larger pool of gamers.

I would say that quite a few gamers and designers DO pay attention to GNS issues, even if they don't know the theory.  Most of the time it hides under red flags such as, "System" "Realism", "Playability", "Strategy", "Story", etc.  The conflict from incoherence is exactly why GNS theory came about.  Instead of addressing the problem, many designers have thrown the problem into the laps of the players with, "Just ignor the rules if you don't like them".

There's three options to take regarding reward systems and explicit CA support:

1- One CA supported
These games are typically seen as highly focused, such as Riddle of Steel, Rune, Call of Cthulu(Chaosium)

2- No CA's clearly supported
This is pretty much what I'm talking about.  The frustrating part is that with it being completely absent, it boils down to "build it on your own" for most groups, and often you will find incoherence in play because the group lacks a common language or tools to work with.

3- Multiple CA's supported
I haven't seen any games that do this to date, but I could see it happening if, for instance, we were to take the gamist rewards from D&D 3.0, include a version of the reward rules similar to what MJ is talking about, and finally something like the D&D SA rules that folks have been playing with.

Chris

[montag]

Chris (bankuei) AFAIK TROS is considered a Narrativist-Simulationist hybrid, the Sim part is AFAIK manifest in the not-SA rules, which focus on in-game causality.
So that would be #3

[John Kim]

2- No CA's clearly supported
This is pretty much what I'm talking about.  The frustrating part is that with it being completely absent, it boils down to "build it on your own" for most groups, and often you will find incoherence in play because the group lacks a common language or tools to work with.

Hmm.  Are you talking about vaguely worded reward systems, or flat reward systems?  I'd agree that vaguely-worded reward systems require "build your own" on the part of the players -- i.e. they have to agree for themselves what "good role-playing" means.  However, many systems are primarily flat reward systems, i.e. reward for attendence.  While you might not like this as an option, the system is at least easy to use and doesn't require any modification.  

I say this because I've almost always gone with flat reward systems in my campaigns.  I don't do that because I'm lazy, but because I haven't liked how the alternatives worked out.  Voting has seemed like a popularity contest and encouraged everyone to show off.  I've never felt comfortable in GM judgement, nor does it seems to improve things.  I can go into those in detail, but that's probably a separate thread.