Lazy Reward System & the missing CA

[Bankuei]

Hi markus,

Don't mistake the causality issue as a simulationist CA.  Remember, you can pull several dice from SAs in TROS that throws the causality out the window very quickly. Also, I wasn't referring to supporting a hybrid, but rather presenting solid options in terms of reward systems.  I think this is possible, but simply haven't seen it to date.

John,

I think "build your own" systems and attendance reward systems are the same in terms of what they do as far as support from the text to actual play goes:  Neither supports any CA.  If you have to build your own, you don't have a solid reward system in place, at best, you might have an estimate of "how fast" rewards should be handed out, though not what for.  If attendance is rewarded, in fact, no actual in game activity is rewarded, and no particular activity is encouraged.

Chris

[montag]

Chris, I'd say that there is no "mistak[ing] the causality issue as a simulationist CA", since AFAIK the focus on in-game causality is one of the major characteristics of Simulationism. You seem to disagree, so I'll go and re-think this, and open another thread if necessary.
It isn't relevant to this thread anyway, since you're absolutely right concerning the reward system in TROS. Apologies for no paying enough attention to the topic.

[M. J. Young]

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.

I think John is correct in dividing #2 into games that are unclear regarding what they are trying to reward and games that are specifically not rewarding any particular aspect of play (attendance awards).

I'm uncertain from this whether you would consider Multiverser #2 or #3. As I point out in the Applied Theory article, one must not conflate character improvement with reward system. A game can have one system that does both, two independent systems, a system that does one but no interest in the other, or no system for either. D&D obviously ties the two closely together, such that reward and improvement are the same mechanism. Sorcerer has strong reward mechanics but completely independent character improvement. Gamma World (3rd or 4th ed, not certain at this point) removed nearly all character improvement and reward mechanics. Multiverser has clear character improvement mechanics but no reward system at all. (I'm trying to think of a game with a reward mechanic but no character improvement, but I'm afraid my game literacy is deep but narrow.)

The question, then, would be if a game has no reward mechanic at all, but makes play its own reward, does it fall into #2 (because no CA is clearly supported by a non-existent reward system) or #3 (because all CAs are equally supported by a non-existent reward system)?

I assure you it is not dysfunctional; players find their niche fairly easily, getting what they want out of the game. This works because of other aspects of the design (particularly the multiple staging aspect, the fact that no effort is made to require the players to work together if they don't wish to do so).

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

I think that to a certain extent, something is getting ignored here. That is, the "other" side of reward systems. That is, you can't just look at what the reward is given for, but what it's used for as well. If a reward seems to be given for no particular reason, but it ends up only being useful for increasing the character's combat effectiveness in an otherwise gamist game, then that's a reward that encourages Gamism.

I think the Traveller example is actually quite apt. Rewards are, by their nature, metagame. If you really want to eliminate the metagame, then elimination of rewards seems like a suitable method. That is, for those designers wanting to really support simulationism, you can see why the choice was in Traveller to drop the reward system entirely.

Interestingly, what I see happening in much Traveller play, however, is a substitution of credits as the quantifier of success. That is, I've seen a lot of Traveller play in which the goal was just to get as rich as possible. Not as something selected as a goal by the players, but as a default as the only escallating number on the character sheet.

Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

The reason I lump together unclear games and games that do not reward any particular aspect of play is that for the purposes of this discussion, both seem to be holdovers from other games, rather than an actual thought out design feature.  

As far as games without a reward system, they're not really pertinent to the thread here.  I'm not trying to list every possible form of game, but rather looking at how reward systems do, or do not support a given CA.  Any game that supports its CA just fine without a reward system is great, and I'd like to see more of them.

But we seem to be wandering here, I still have the question:

Is there any case that someone can make for reward systems that do not support any particular CA?

Chris

[M. J. Young]

But we seem to be wandering here, I still have the question:

Is there any case that someone can make for reward systems that do not support any particular CA?

In the abstract? I'll make a stab at it.

First prong: the reward must be given for activities that either are not CA related or which, if CA related, are supportive of all three CAs. The former would include such as attendance awards, fixed completion of chapter bonuses, and rewards connected to random die roll outcomes (such as a point every time a natural twenty is rolled). The latter would be in essence that someone gets a point any time anyone else at the table appreciates his contribution to the shared imaginary space, by whatever means that occurs. This could include uncovering new information or areas to explore, achieving or making possible a success, impacting the story in meaningful ways, as well as making a good joke or helping the mood or remembering to buy someone's favorite snack.

Second prong: the player can spend the reward in any of multiple ways which would support different agenda. A point could bonus combat effectiveness, permit use of director or author stance, buy contacts to open new areas for exploration, and probably have several other uses.

I should caveat this: it is a driftable design which is open to massive dysfunction. Players with different creative agenda will find that the system is working for them and against them at the same time, to the degree that other players are also using the reward system. In a group with a coherent vision of play, it is likely to fall into place as supporting an agreed CA. In a group with conflicting agenda, it is likely to tear the group apart.

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Is there any case that someone can make for reward systems that do not support any particular CA?

My ex-roommate would award experience point for buying him dinner. I'm not sure where he got that from, but he got it from somewhere. We rarely cashed in on that one.

He also offered 200 XP to help him find his scientific calculator once.

Is this what you mean?

[M. J. Young]

Is this what you mean?

That sounds like it fits with one prong. I was in a game like that once. Points were given for making the referee laugh, helping with game paperwork, orienting new players, writing character journals, wearing cool T-shirts, and just about anything the referee appreciated.

In that particular case, though, those were a special class of "emergency experience points" whose prime in-game function was to prevent level loss from life drain attacks (something the referee disliked intensely but felt were a necessary part of the game). That made the system gamist, ultimately, because the point of gathering these points was to use as a tactical resource of sorts.

That's why I attempted to address both prongs above.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

I still have the question:

Is there any case that someone can make for reward systems that do not support any particular CA?

Well, I generally use an attendence reward system, so I suppose I should try to justify it.  Ultimately, non-flat rewards boil down to basically three possibilities:
1) Judgement call by the GM
2) Judgement call by the group (i.e. voting)
3) Mechanical formula

Plus any combination of these three, of course.  A system could be partly defined and partly a judgement call.  An example of #3 might be rewards for how well a character follows his defined Destiny trait or Personality traits.  However, I dislike #3 because it encourages exaggerated characters.  i.e. If your character has a "Loyal to King" trait and is rewarded for displaying that, then the player is encouraged to make his character constantly display loyalty as much as possible.  This can be appropriate for some genres, but it's not generally the style which I try for.  

In turn, #1 encourages sucking up to the GM, while #2 tends to become a popularity contest.  More importantly, I'm just not comfortable with making judgements about who is a better role-player than who.  It also can become a feedback loop for player dominance -- i.e. the players who don't do as well are given less reward, are de-motivated, and fall in the shadow of the rewarded players.

[Bankuei]

Hi MJ,

While I understand the variety of ways in which it can happen, I'm still not seeing a positive benefit from utilizing non-CA supporting rewards.  Looking at the first prong(what earns the reward), the most plausible one that I've seen was Scattershot's XP dice getting rewarded around the table by players(CA undefined).

John,

I've generally found #1 and #2 as you've described them to be exactly the sort of lazy reward systems that I'm talking about.   As far as #3, only 2 sorts of mechanics spring to mind that do not support any CA, that being attendance reward and reward for the lucky roll, but that's about it.  I'm not seeing any case for attendance rewards in terms of helping play, though.  Could you clarify?

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Well, let's not be obtuse, Chris. Attendance rewards may actually boost attendance in theory. Which is prerequisite for good play. It's a reward supporting the social contract level in the rewarding, not the CA level.

Look at the other end, again, however. Likely those rewards are going to be character improvement rewards, or narration control rewards, or somesuch. Meaning that they may have some slight slant on that end. For example, I award HP in HQ for attendance, and how much play occurs. This is the "fuel" for narrativism in HQ, each expenditure being an important choice in allocation indicating what's important to the player. Success now, developing some ability later, cementing some relationship at some point, etc.

Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

Good point.  I suppose that clarifies some of the Gamist tendencies I've seen in both the non-D&D D20 stuff and the White Wolf games...while the rewards may not be gamist in earning them, it certainly becomes so in spending.

I'm going to sit with it for a while and call the thread closed.  Thanks for everyone's input.  Further ideas can be PM'd to me.

Chris