Need a little insight on a non-level building rpg game

[sergeant_x]

Kevin,

I've been looking at games from a similar point of view. For most of the genres and styles of games I'm interested in playing, character 'advancement'  just distracts from gameplay rather than complementing it. The question is, why has advancement become the status quo in the first place? I'm working on the assumption that it provides something to gamers that makes it worth while, and I'm not just talking about munchkins chasing levels.

I think character advancement gives players a sense of creation, as in the second half of recreation. It is satisfying in somewhat the same way that building up an complex and realisitic model train might be. Part of the satisfaction in this sense comes after the game session is over. A player can consider recent changes and peruse their character sheet, tinkering with ways they might improve their character. They feel like they're more part of the process, building something as a creative part of campaign.

If we're going to replace 'advancement' with something I think we should keep in mind what needs we're neglecting and try to fill them in another way. For players with a taste for a narrativist games, this isn't much of a problem.  A lot of narrativist games solve this problem by rewarding skillful, creative gaming with a greater say in how the story goes. Simulationist games usually lean more heavily on character advancement to keep players involved, especially given that players of sim games aren't generally as interested in assuming director's stance.

I'm wondering if their aren't ways to allow players to be more a part of campaign creation, without pushing them into a sort of part time GM role. Can we parcel GM responsibilies in such a way that player can contribute, but still not have this conflict with their sense of seeing the game world through the character's eyes..

In my favorite campaigns, my players did these things without prompting. They designed buildings for their holdings, created henchmen (supporting cast) characters, and took an interest in helping to flesh out the shared imagined world. I wonder if we couldn't incorporate that kind of activity into the rules structure as a replacement for inflated character advancement?

[Mike Holmes]

Sergeant, already been done. See games like The Pool, InSpectres, COTEC, Puppetland, My Life With Master, and many others.

The reason for the popularity and continued play of games that include "advancement" is because it's an addictive model. You hit the nail on the head, it's about "creation" or having a sense of accomplishment. Of having survived to the next level, and having gotten that magic item that makes the character that much more powerful.

Don't get us wrong, here. There's nothing wrong at all with the D&D Leveling up model in terms of potential fun. It's just one method that supports one sort of play very well. There are other ways to support that sort of play, and there are other sorts of play to support, as well, however. So it's just one model that works.

Trying to beat D&D at this model, however, when using other methods that are similar, is just not a formula for success. The Fantasy Heartbreaker (see the Essays) is a game that will have ten fans who think that they're special because they found the game first and think that they see something in it that nobody else does. And then the game will have ten more people who play (mostly because of the ten fans). And that's all the play that the game will see other than that of the designer.

Beause, truth be told, D&D does a fairly good job at the whole level model. The third edition really cleaned up a lot of residual problems, and now the game does pretty well what it's designed to do. If you think it doesn't, then that's a sign that you really want to play something else entirely than a level based experience model game.

Mike

[dewey]

Kevin:
One of my ideas about enriching your character's personality as a form of advancement goes like this:

- At character creation each player can add a set number (let's say 3) of personality traits to the character. After each scene the group decides who incorporated their personality traits in the scene. Let's suppose player A incorporated 2 of the 3, then player A gets 2 booster points (BP).
- Anyone can use any number of booster points in an action, to make it more likely to succeed.
- After a scene, a player may use 5 booster points to add another personality trait to the character, thus adding more opportunity to gain booster points.
- So, the character develops, because it gets more and more detailed and also provides more and more ways to get those booster points. Still, there's no statistic that increases.
- And, other than this, characters usually stay with the same stats (attributes, skills, whatever). When someone feels so, they can increase any stats if the group (not just the GM!) approves.
- This all gives a well-defined method of character development without XP or XP-like points.



As an aside, what do veteran Forgers say to this?

[dewey]

Well, somewhat lately I realised that my last question is offtopic, so please answer to it in private message. Thanks.

[sergeant_x]

Mike,

I guess I wasn't clear because what I have in mind isn't really represented in the games you quoted (although I admit I haven't seen COTEC). What I have in mind is replacing the reward mechanic with something that allows players to retain a sense of creation, but doesn't ask them to take responsibility for the 'story'. It seems there ought to be some ways to abstract the process and represent it in game rules.

I should be clear here. I have no problem with narrativist games that include player narration and plot contribution; I quite like them. But in a casual survey, I've found that many players don't like breaking out of their character POV as often as those types of games require.

What I'm talking about are clear cut rules that offer options for players to contribute to different elements of the game world between game sessions - something to replace the sort of constructive fiddling that character advancement offers. I'd like to see rules every bit as crunchy as task resolution that guide this.  Player could choose from options including NPC creation, equipment creation, history writeups - those are the kinds of things I'm thinking of. I'm curious whether we could expand this list enough to come up with a 'shopping list' that would entice players to see this as an actual reward for playing well.

If "...already been done..." means the issue has been disussed to death and I should be quiet, I'll happily do that, but I do feel the original question of the thread is worth a thorough exploration.

[Precious Villain]

This made me think of the quote "a soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon."  It's attributed to Napoleon, though I don't know if it's been authenticated.  Maybe your setting won't work with this, but providing this kind of social and merit based reward can be very effective.  Titles, rank, resources and decorations are all useful if you have some kind of semi-organizational hierarchy in which to apply them.  This applies in both modern and primitive societies (look at the brouhaha over Sen. Kerry's medals) and could be a good way of keeping your players motivated.

The "Bughunters" RPG (now out of print) had a pretty standard point based advancement system, but it also had a system of Rank Points.  Rank points didn't do anything for you except get promotions (which increased pay).  You got rank points for increasing some stats, but also for getting decorations, medals, letters of commendation and so forth.

It might be better for a system where the player characters are much more powerful than ordinary people, but not in an obvious visible way.  I could see this for a lot of pulpy action games.  Your stats are a lot better than Joe Average, but until you have the battle scars, the sergeant major's chevrons, the Sword's Point First Class (with palm frond in lieu of a second award) and so forth there's no way for people to distinguish you.  That kind of reputational increase is probably enough to motivate a player where simple power increase isn't available.

[TooManyGoddamnOrcs]

Here's an idea that might make the game a bit too Gamist but might be all right for the right group: make the ranks power within the group. Perhaps the player who makes sergeant (or Loyalty Officer) can, to a limited degree, order the other players around.  Perhaps different decorations give different metagame powers: an award for tactical excellence might give scene-framing powers, the aformentioned Sword's Point First Class might allow the player to determine NPC reactions (within reason, although modified by the number of fronds), perhaps Security Clearence will allow the player to suggest the next mission.  To make it more Gamist: limit the number of decorations and make explicit the steps necessary to earn them.  Less Gamist, you can toss 'em around like party favors, asshole GMs can give their girlfriends extra rank or manipulate the players by promising them brass.  Social Engineer wannabe DMs can give timid or overshadowed players Stripes (and the respect they demand).

[andy]

Perhaps it would work to completely separate "rewards" for playing/roleplaying from the concept of characters getting better.

Realistically speaking, there has to be some way that characters improve/learn new skills, etc. I have just learned how to grout tiles--I didn't know how yesterday--I bought a book, got the tools and materials and practiced on my bathroom until it looked OK. Next time, I will do a better job yet--pretty exciting, huh?

I do agree that character improvement/leveling up should not be the purpose of a RPG--I tend to believe that building a story and a campaign are more rewarding than learning FIREBALL (I was one of Sgt. X's old campaign players).

To be honest, one game that I've played and run that did some of this well was Senzar, a munchkin's dream if ever there was one. However, there was a gem hidden in the midden-- the concept of training time and skills. My players liked to level up, but the most precious reward that I would give them was time off for training to learn new skills, abilities, etc. A boatload of experience points was nice, but they'd flip over a year off to learn and improve themselves. I realize that other games also used this mechanic-- Runequest allowed you to train to learn new skills, for example.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that rewards and improvement should coexist, but separately. One learns to handle a blade by studying from a master and practicing, not by stabbing an orc. Use a rank/kudo system to reward play and a learning system to improve characters.

Luck to all.

Andy

[Precious Villain]

Andy I think you're really onto something there.  A system of social rewards for in character adventuring does a great job of motivating players to go out and do more.  A system of training time and mentoring is realistic.  Combine the two and you get the best of all possible worlds.  

I've spent time in games where training time was considered more important than even adventuring.  Months of in game time had to be tracked and dealt with (and all the associated accounting) while nothing much happened.  In this particular game, hit points, THAC0, saves and spells only went up with levelling.  Skills, however, were so much more important that it didn't really matter.  

A split system like this would have been much more handy.

[Mike Holmes]

Several games I can think of have systems like this. GURPS, for instance, has an alternate "training time" system of development, and actual rules for learning on the job, etc. Interestingly, I've never seen it used in play of GURPS (other than accidentally as a result of playing out employment).

While it sounds good, in theory, the problem is that providing such an activity often ends up substituting for more interesting play. That is, players seeing a way to power-up without jeopardizing their characters take this easy "win," instead of persuing the action of the game. That is, let's say that the premise of the game in question is "Black Ops." The players, instead of going after the bad guys, instead just do nothing but train, train, train. It then becomes the GM's job entirely to interject with missions or the like.

The problem then becomes that training time is entirely a matter of GM fiat. That is, he can say that lots of time passes between missions, or very little. Basically the GM decides just how much the players advance by this method. So, what's the difference between this, and just awarding EXP? That is, what's attractive about playing the training part of play? What's the end result? Does the player feel a sense of accomplishment?

So, while this sounds good in theory, the few times I've seen it in action it hasn't turned out so well.

Now, if all we're talking about is directing where EXP can be used, dividing things up into two categories, then there are tons and tons of systems that support that already. To take an early one, Champions always has had a rule that says that the GM can give EXP only to be used for this or that. And has always been pretty ambiguous on what they can be given for - making awarding like you're describing pretty easy.

Mike

[kevin_presley]

I feel like I have read, and understood what you all have been trying to convey to me. The bottom line seems to be that all of this has been done before. Everyone that has posted here has had some experience(please excuse the pun) in these types of games.
So now, the big question is this; If our game was re-vamped a little in the weak areas(story, and character) would using the XP system actually be so bad? Gaining points to get rewards(either to get skills, or any other type of additions to the character) is still advancement of character. So, isn't a horse of a different color still a horse? if you set a game for characters to build "ranks" what is the different than that same character building "levels" through points? I understand "kill an orc, get an xp award" has been done to death. What if the system only rewards [part] of its points through battle. For instance, battle would be 20% of XP, completing the adventure would be another portion of the points, and working as a team in play would get the group another portion of the points.
        I say all that to say this;
      Does this truly affect the decision of a person to buy/not buy a RPG game? or does this affect a person in the long run of playing the system, and buying more supplements of that game later?
yet another question in search of an answer
thanks
Kevin

[Deadboy]

Well, Kevin, consider this: of those people I know who don't care for D&D and prefer other game systems, one of their core complaints is the XP/Level system, and I count myself as one of them.

I personally hate XP/Levels, I feel it stratifies characters too much by power level. It limits my choice in how I want to develop my character and always feels artificial and forced. XP/Levels, along with the hit points/Armor Class system, were the two major reasons I stopped playing. In D&D, the difference between a 1st and 5th level character is so enormous that you couldn't have two characters at those developmental levels in the same party and be fair to both players. Mr. 1st Level would get trounced by anything even remotely challeging to Mr. 5th. Players can always meta-game what creatures they are capable of defeating -- Personally, I like games where I can face a dragon as a starting character yet still find orcs challenging after having been around a while.  Of course, maybe this is just D&D and there's a way to redo the XP system so it doesn't stratify and herd players so much.

Those complaints aside, if you're looking to make a game that ventures into D&D's genre of fantasy, you're going to want to try and attract those players who are dissatisfied with the way D&D does things. Which means you should probably try to avoid mechanics such as AC, levels, and hit points that most cite as their problems with the system.

On the other hand, if you really have your heart set on XP/Levels, go for it, and find something else to change. In the end, it's your game.

[sergeant_x]

I'd think getting rid of, or vastly de-emphasizing character 'advancement' (power increases of some form) would turn a lot of people off. Especially if you didn't replace it with something as compelling.  I've been trying to replace it and most players balk. They're ok with additional roleplaying related rewards, but they seem to want to keep the improvement ladder in one form or another. That's just my casually observation, however. I'm sure there's a lot of variance in playgroups.

[andy]

What this topic really boils down to is the question of what really motivates players. For example, Mike is correct when he writes:

While it sounds good, in theory, the problem is that providing such an activity often ends up substituting for more interesting play. That is, players seeing a way to power-up without jeopardizing their characters take this easy "win," instead of persuing the action of the game. That is, let's say that the premise of the game in question is "Black Ops." The players, instead of going after the bad guys, instead just do nothing but train, train, train. It then becomes the GM's job entirely to interject with missions or the like.

The question that we as GMs must ask ourselves is WHY? Why is training more interesting than adventiring? Is it more fun? Is it more important to the players to cause their characters to get better than it is to adventure/go on missions, etc.? In real life, our Special Forces train a lot more than they go on missions, and they do so for one reason--training improves their skills and improved skills increase their chances of success and survival.

When I ran Senzar (an experience deserving of a thread of its own), the sessions did devolve into training sessions until I broke the monotony with two separate approaches-- first, we did our training out of game via blue booking, and second, I regularly railroaded them into missions (which fit the campaign).

Sgt. X's approach, which essentially involves substituting plot control as the primary player motivator, provides a viable answer IMHO. As long as it's sufficiently crunchy (to satisfy gamists), not too unrealistic (to make the simulationists happy), the enhanced plot control should please narrativists. And if a game can make the players AND the GM happy, it has accomplished my goal for gaming.

'nuff said.

Andy

[Mike Holmes]

First, there's no problem, again, with retaining an advancement scheme. Almost all games have it to some extent, even if it's a light touch. (This is not to say that you can't take away development - many games have done so successfully).

That said, there's a general axiom that we apply here that applies to this part of the discussion: reward systems come in two parts - what's rewarded, and the form of the reward.

For instance, consider D&D. You are rewarded for killing things, and good thinking, etc. Most versions also say that you are rewarded for "good roleplaying" in some way, but usually fail to say what that means. The rewards, however, are for powering up, only, and only in ways that are directly involved with being able to kill things more effectively. To be precise, hit points, ability to hit and do damage, most special abilities like feats, and the vast majority of spells, are all involved with being able to kill stuff.

So, while a GM could really emphasize "roleplaying" by giving out lots of EXP for it, players will still be informed that what they're supposed to be doing is killing things, and taking their stuff (I'm particularly fond of the old one EXP per GP conversion that makes stuff and rewards directly convertible). So, while you might get more roleplaying, you won't ever get rid of combat in that game. Because there's really nothing more to be done with the points that you get.

So, D&D is a great model for promoting hack n' slash, but not a lot of good for anything else.

Basically, the reward system you set up works as part of the game as a whole. Looking at it in part will not give you an idea of what the system will do. So I'm dubious as to what effect splitting up what you give rewards for will have. In D&D the "roleplaying" awards are often forgotten entirely.


Do these things have an effect on whether people will play the game. Definitely yes. Not as to whether they'll buy the game off the shelf without having heard about it at all - but this is rare in any case. What happens is that a game gets played, and people say stuff about it. Then others pick up on what sort of play the game supports. Then, if it sounds like what they're intrested in, then they buy. One thing that really hurts a game is if the word of mouth is bad. One thing that really affects quality of play is what we call coherence around here, and it's very possible to make bad games if you're not careful by putting in reward systems that say incoherent things to the players. So, yes, this is a critical part of the game. In fact, some say it's more important in terms of good play than any other part of the game.

Mike