Step On Up: Stakes?

[Ben O'Neal]

Ok, I'm asking this question primarily because it holds some relevance to me right now. In reading Ron's Gamism: Step On Up essay, and M.J. Young's Applied Theory essay, I noticed an apparent lack of concrete examples of successful applications of Stakes at the Step On Up level. Stakes at the Challenge level, it appears, are rather simpler and more common.

From Ron's essay, we have:

So what constitutes "success" at the Step On Up and/or Challenge level during play? Is it the right to keep playing? Improving one's character's effectiveness, begging the question of what for? Getting some kind of "victory points"? The metagame/game relationship between these is phenomenally important. I think that, in Gamist play, the metagame-part is the key one - a completely informal Social Reward (e.g., "Killed more goblins than you!", even in a game-system which confers no consequence for doing so) can easily outweigh an in-game one.

In taking this idea to design, my mind kind of balks at the tricky mix of Exploration and Competition, and how to keep them from being at cross-purposes. It is really hard to conceive of Gamist reward mechanisms that are both consistently satisfying across long-term play and meaningful at the Step On Up level. Abstract victory points are arguably quite weak; "you win" means nothing if it, well, doesn't do anything. The more-commonly seen metric of character survival is badly broken, in a variety of applications. If character death is temporary, it's not much of a loss condition, but if it's not, the game is often forced to abandon the loss condition such that people can continue to play.

Character improvement ("advancement") is even more problematic...

Which is great for identifying what Stakes are bad and/or hard to implement, but doesn't really fill me with ideas and inspiration.

M.J.'s essay too, seems only concerned with the application of Stakes at the Challenge level, with a brief mention that at the Step On Up level, "play [may be] it's own reward". No offence intended, but I think this is kind of a cop-out, and certainly not prescriptive of any mode of play.

So my question, then, is: How can Stakes (gain and loss) be successfully and effectively implemented at the Step On Up level? Or are we doomed to rely on the players to create their own: "Killed more goblins than you!"?

Or am I talking out of my ass?

-Ben

P.S. Good solid examples would be great. Hypothetical propositions using Scarlet Wake as an example would be even better. *wink wink* :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ben,

Awesome question. As you can tell from my article, I consider this to be the most fruitful territory for Gamist play to venture into - in many ways, it's the most woefully underdeveloped of the three modes despite its undeniable intensity and presence.

All I can do at the moment is point out some games which I think promote extremely concrete and enjoyable "blends" of Step On Up stakes and Challenge "stakes" via their systems: The Great Ork Gods, Tunnels & Trolls, Ninja Burger.

Games which I've found to be a little problematic in this regard include Pantheon and Gamist-oriented Champions.

I haven't played Rune yet, but I'd like to hear from some people who have.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I actually ran Rune for something like 5 or so sessions.  I had 4 players, although I do have to admit it was highly drifted in the fact that none of the other players were willing to read the rules and do the "GM, create an encounter" bit, so it was all me making up encounters for them to run through.  Aside from that major drift, we played according to the rules put forth.  

Anyhow, for our group, quite a few things occured over the course of play:

1) Like D&D 3+'s Challenge Ratings, the point values assigned to challenges were not much help.  Some ratings could be obnoxiously low and still kill someone, while others would be really high and be pushovers.  Good solid gamist challenges were more a matter of experience with the system...which, given the rotating GM nature, probably works to its benefit, which I'm sad I didn't get to enjoy.

2) The character improvement system held up well for the first few sessions, then fell completely apart as the players discovered "Buffeting Gale", a special ability that, when used successfully, garnered even more improvement points, and it was notoriously easy to implement.  I think this single rule ended our time with Rune once the players grabbed onto the power spiral and quickly got bored with the game.

3)  Step on Up wasn't as much a matter of who killed how many monsters, but who could do it the coolest.  There was also good natured razzing when people rolled really bad(such as a PC who froze to death in 2 and half feet of water, the ongoing joke being that his tender bits froze up and fell off, floating downstream...).

Also, we were using small toys as mini's and the mini itself would get a nickname and its own reputation regardless of the monster it represented.  Although there was no bonus in points, players got particular joy in taking out certain mini's every time, in fact, forming "rivalries" as it were("Damn you Pikachu! You're mine!").

Overall, I'd say the points were a factor, but not an overwhelming one.  I could see how in other groups they might be more of an incentive.  The real Step on Up was all about who could do things the "coolest" based on factors determined by the group at the table.  

So my question, then, is: How can Stakes (gain and loss) be successfully and effectively implemented at the Step On Up level? Or are we doomed to rely on the players to create their own: "Killed more goblins than you!"?

In this regard, while the points and numbers didn't make the big difference, Rune had quite a few things that facilitated the second issue.  

First, Rune is unabashedly gamist.  There's no confusion about this being about "roleplaying", alignments, politics, etc.  Objectives are laid out clearly and the competition begins in "how to achieve" them.  This focuses play and avoids all the nasty trip ups people get GNS-wise.

Second, character advancement is akin to deck-building in Magic the Gathering.  D&D 3.0 is similar with its Feats.  Character advancement is about picking out different neat abilities and linking them in such a way to facilitate certain strategies with your characer.  So you begin competing with the other players to create the "most efficient" character given a particular style of combat, mixed with your encounter to encounter tactics.

Third, the rules specifically reward the GM for creating challenges that are tough and almost, but not quite, take out the group.  This provided me, the GM, with a challenge(and reward) and kept the victories real close for the players when I accurately judged the difficulty of the challenges.

Chris

[GreatWolf]

It's been almost two years since we wrapped up our Rune game (just prior to the move to Peoria), so my recollections are a little dim.  However, this comes from playing with a group that included up to nine players, and spanned over approximately twenty encounters.

First, while I like Rune, I also think that it needed one more round of playtesting.  There are a number of contradictions or unclear sections in the rules.

In my group, victory points were central to the Step On Up.  Whoever had the most points (both overall and earned in the current adventure) was considered to be "winning" and therefore needed to be stopped.  This shaped activity both in and out of adventuring.

For example, during an adventure, kill-stealing was par for the course (and is, indeed, encouraged by the rules system).  Therefore, a quality kill-steal would be viewed as a skillful move, not as a dirty underhanded move.

Character development then became an arena for strategizing, as Chris notes.  I approached my character with ideas for a certain "strategy" to maximize my victory points, and so did the rest of the group.  In some ways, it was freeing.  I didn't need to justify my decisions in terms of some character background or story.  No, my decisions for game abilities were solely for the purpose of improving my ability to survive adventures and/or earn more VPs then my opponent.

At the same time, since, the system penalizes everyone for the death of characters, it was assumed that one would not suicide just to drain others of their VPs.  I remember that one player did this once, and while it was technically legal, it was generally agreed that this violated the spirit of the rules.

Also, at the end of one round of adventuring (when each player had an opportunity to GM), the players each voted for Best Encounter, with the winner being given a VP bonus.  This vote was generally based on the "coolness" factor of the encounter, but, unlike Chris's experience, this rewarded the runner's "coolness" in creating neat combat environments or other clever bits.  (Some examples:  once we fought Barney and a bunch of Smurfs in a room full of spiked pits; we fought in a dwarven room that was slowly filling up with scalding water; things like that.)

Interestingly, the Step On Up did not extend to the distribution of treasure.  In general, money and minor items were distributed as evenly as possible.  Major items were distributed randomly among those who wanted the item.  (As I recall, everyone rolled a d10, with the lowest player dropping out.  Last one standing got the item.)  However, a player who received a major item was not eligible to receive another one until everyone else had received a major item.

The Book of Iron Law was a big deal for us.  This is the game's name for the official collection of house rules.  So, for example, the treasure allocation procedure was in the Book of Iron Law.  As I look back on the house rules, they existed to preserve our concept of what Step On Up should look like.  So, for instance, we agreed that stat adjustments from certain powers (like Implacably Braced) should count for determining the strength of monsters.  This was in order to keep the game from becoming too easy.

Finally, for our last session, we agreed to do a Battle Royal to determine who won the entire campaign.  We did this by putting together an arena and duking it out, every man for himself.  (For those who are wondering, my wife emerged victorious.)

Hopefully this contributes some understanding to Step On Up.

(BTW, Chris, Buffetting Gale was errataed to max out at 4 levels.  That makes a big difference.  We had someone who was trying to ride that particular route to victory, too.)

[GreatWolf]

I actually ran Rune for something like 5 or so sessions.  I had 4 players, although I do have to admit it was highly drifted in the fact that none of the other players were willing to read the rules and do the "GM, create an encounter" bit, so it was all me making up encounters for them to run through.  Aside from that major drift, we played according to the rules put forth.  

Unlike (say) D&D, where the Gamism exists mostly on the "GM vs. players" level, Rune is always functioning as a "player vs. player" fight...even when it comes to running an encounter.  IMHO, losing this feature of Rune radically changes the game by introducing a "GM vs. players" aspect to it.  This probably contributed to the lack of emphasis on VPs in Chris's group.  In our experience, we weren't about to give the runner the satisfaction of earning VPs if we could possibly help it.

That being said, the encounter rules are complex, so I often helped the other players put their encounters together.  This is because I knew the rules and was usually the GM in other games.  I did try to keep my knowledge of the encounter removed from my playing of the encounter, which may have handicapped me somewhat.

[M. J. Young]

M.J.'s essay too, seems only concerned with the application of Stakes at the Challenge level, with a brief mention that at the Step On Up level, "play [may be] it's own reward". No offence intended, but I think this is kind of a cop-out, and certainly not prescriptive of any mode of play.

I'm pleased my article was helpful; I think, though, that this is not exactly a cop-out.

Ron and I agree on many things; but I think we disagree about the importance of reward systems in game design. However, I think we would agree that reward systems ultimately only reinforce or conflict with mode of play. They add something to that which is already fun.

I'm reminded of running a world for one player that I really had very little idea what would become of it. I had in mind a sort of simulationism--what would happen if the concept of individual rights had not emerged in the eleventh century? The logical chain I followed from a single failed event in history led to a hypothetical future in which most of the United States was British Royal Colonies, with some conflict with Spain over a few of the southwestern territories, despite the rise to twentieth century levels of technology. (There was more background to this, but that's sufficient for now.) The player had a bit of trouble almost as soon as he arrived, trying to figure out where and when he was, and he started out by killing someone on the street out of sheer frustration. This led to a police manhunt for him, as he (with his wife and a friend) led them on a mad chase from California to New Jersey. The game was for several sessions all about how long Bill could stay ahead of the army, and he had a grand time with it. He was showing off his ability to use what he knew to beat the odds. It was great fun for everyone as he did this.

There was no reward for this in the game system; there was no expectation that this would be the way this game was played in the setting. He suddenly took off on a gamist romp in which he defined the challenges and overcame them, and everyone cheered him on, laughed at his near misses, applauded the multi-car pile-up he caused getting through the blockade at the bridge, and otherwise slipping through their fingers again and again.

I'm not certain how you reward this kind of play at the metagame level, other than that the player has the thrill of victory and the others at the table cheer him on. Those are the rewards at the step-on-up level; anything else has to be in-game, pretty much.

Now, you could create out-of-game rewards, like the person voted most valuable player doesn't have to pay for the pizza, or everyone bets on the outcome and the winner takes the pot, or something like that; but really, the reward of step-on-up is that it is fun to impress your friends. Anything you add to that is reinforcement.

I would love to see some interesting step-on-up level rewards; I just don't think you should minimize the notion that play is its own reward, though, because I think that's fundamental to a lot of roleplaying design. We do what we do because we enjoy it; the reward systems are icing on the cake.

--M. J. Young

[Ben O'Neal]

Hi M.J.,

That's a very good point, and I agree with you completely. I think I should clarify myself. When I said "cop-out", I meant that whilst play can be and should be it's own reward, that aspect is completely out of the hands of designers. All that's left is to "cross your fingers and pray". In this way your words might be construed as suggesting that designers needn't bother trying to reward Step On Up because the players will do that themselves... hence that misconception becomes the "cop-out": an excuse for lazy design.

Now I'm not saying that all games that don't reward SOU are lazy and badly designed, I'm just saying that designers should perhaps really put some effort into this area, and only leave it at "play is it's own reward" when they can't think of anything else. In essence, so long as you give it an honest attempt, it's all good. IMHO, all games benefit from effortful design, and all games benefit from player's bringing thier own rewards to the table, as perfectly illustrated by Chris's quote: "Damn you Pikachu! You're mine!".

So what you're saying is right, but I think it could be construed as an excuse not to try. Which I don't think is something you would want.


Regarding Rune, it's sounding to me like these VP's are kinda hollow. I mean, what do they do? Things like that work great in board games and stuff (like trivial pursuit "pie pieces"), but I dunno... they just seem kinda pointless at a higher level. Is there a "win condition" with them? Like the first person to get X amount wins? Are there other rewards for reaching certain benchmarks, like every X VPs you get ? If not, then I don't see any real reason to "chase" them as an end in and of themselves.


Also Ron, thanks for that list. I dled a copy of Great Ork Gods, cos it's still a free playtest, I found the ninja burger site and left empty handed and very confused, and apparently I have to buy Tunnels and Trolls, which would be difficult because the only store that stocks RPGs within 3 hours of driving doesn't have it, and I lack the funds anyways. Would it be possible to post an exampe of the blended Stakes you mention?

Thanks,
-Ben

[C. Edwards]

Hey,

I've got an example from a work in progress.

I'm handling the SOU in Doomchaser by making it the only mechanism for reward in the game and by marrying it to the degree of risk that a PC faces.

At its most basic, it works like this: Each PC has a meter. The current amount of Doom on that meter determines the consequences of failure for any attempted action where the dice are rolled. If the meter is ever completely filled, the PC is Doomed (the reasons vary, could result in death but not necessarily) and is removed from play. The player that makes the most rolls during a session while in the highest risk level of the Doom meter gets a reward. Only one player gets a reward at the end of a session.

There are also some things that can only be accomplished while being in the highest risk level of the Doom meter. While the rewards for the most high level risk rolls aren't necessary to a PC's survival, they are desirable and can add options for creative input and influence in the SiS by the player.

There are issues of strategy and resource allocation that also need to be taken into account in order to maximize your ability navigate your fluctuating Doom meter to best advantage. As well as attain desired results for your character in the SiS.

So, it becomes a game of seeing who can walk the edge more frequently without going over, while promoting tension and drama during play in both the SiS and among the actual players.

-Chris

[GreatWolf]

Regarding Rune, it's sounding to me like these VP's are kinda hollow. I mean, what do they do? Things like that work great in board games and stuff (like trivial pursuit "pie pieces"), but I dunno... they just seem kinda pointless at a higher level. Is there a "win condition" with them? Like the first person to get X amount wins? Are there other rewards for reaching certain benchmarks, like every X VPs you get ? If not, then I don't see any real reason to "chase" them as an end in and of themselves.

We never did clarify this, did we?  In Rune, VPs are your experience points.  You spend these on character improvement, like new skills or Divine Powers.  In addition, according to the game text, every game session is won by whoever earned the most VPs during that session.  However, this is purely for bragging rights.

So, in Rune, you are fighting for the ability to improve your character.

Of course, this raises a question in my mind if Rune then introduces a runaway effect, where the winner continues to win.  My initial reaction, based on my past experience, is that this is balanced by the rotating runner position, where different runners will attempt to design encounters that handicap the leading player.  Further discussion on that, however, probably belongs in a different forum.