Playing two games

[Callan S.]

For the players, the in-game reward system is a way of identifying "job well done", and no, there's no comparable in-game measure for the referee.

I'm glad this is established, but...

but the real reward for gamist character play isn't what the reward system provides--the reward system only supports the real reward, which is the admiration of peers for a job well done. That reward applies equally to the referee.

How though? If were playing sport and Jimbo scores a point, I congratulate him for his sportsman skill.

Now, can I congratulate the person who refereed the same way? How can the referee do anything that will let me congratulate him in the same way?
I can congratulate him just as much as I congratulate Jimbo, but not for the same reasons as Jimbo.

Now suppose the rules get changed and what Jimbo did before doesn't get a point any more, but for some reason he does it again. I say 'Ah, that doesn't do anything for us now'. Jimbo is certainly going to change his behaviour, either for the point or congrats or both.

Now, suppose those sports rules change for the better, but it is possible to for a referee to read it in a way that's just like the old way. And this ref loves the old way, a lot.

Why is he ever going to change his behaviour? No, lets not hot potato this over to players and their responce to this. Lets talk about the designer of the sports rules. What has he done to ensure this change happens? He changed Jimbo's behaviour with the points change. What has he done about the referee changing behaviour? Assuming everyone else loves the new rules and wants to play that way, what has the designer done to ensure players and ref all play the same way?

Or are you allowed to just leave it up to players to change this, since in this special case system doesn't matter? *Note: just attempting to make the question a striking one*

As an aside, if a bonus for "cover" is a reward for using system effectively and thus for gamist play, then there's nothing in play that isn't a reward. If you say you're going to attack and the referee says you get to roll the dice to see if you hit, then rolling the dice (by that logic) is the reward. Apart from that, even if cover bonus is a reward, it is a reward because it moves the player closer to his desired reward, which is the victory, and the esteem that comes from it.

Yup, just about everything in play is a reward of some strength for a gamist. When you think gamist, don't just think one big victory, think of savouring many small victories AND the big victory latter. While to a sim (I hope I get this right description of pleasure right), stepping behind the crate makes the scene more forfilling in that the hero would do that (and thus its a more solid vision) and the sounds of the bullets hitting the crate are rich in his ears. And the nar steps behind it to potentially show that no, he wont run across a room of gunfire to save Suzie. Sim and Nar use cover or other stuff to support something else. Cover and other stuff is the meat and veg of the gamist. I think that's why your finding the gamists in your multiverser game...there's plenty of gamist goodness, but perhaps your not used to using and seeing the game that way.

I've had a few problems in getting across rewards, but I'm too sick to start a whole new thread on it. If anyone wants to add something on this I thik it'd be good to start a new thread on it.

[John Uckele]

Yup, just about everything in play is a reward of some strength for a gamist.

Now, if the crate cover is a reward, and the PC get's it for good tactics, don't NPCs get the same kinds of rewards. NPCs using strong strategy can be a reward in the victory (giving PCs a hard time) because those NPCs would not have been a sufficient challenge had they not used tactics. After all, in most systems, the NPC gets the cover bonus just like PCs do.

What I'm seeing is that every type of reward I can think of (in the moment fun, sim fulfillment, nar fulfillment, social rewards) with the exception of experience, and 'winning' can be rewarded to a GM just as easily as it can be rewarded to players. I'd go further to argue that 'winning' for a gamist GM is not killing the PCs, but nearly killing them. If you accept that argument then there is only one type of reward that GMs are not usually rewarded.

[John Uckele]

Yup, just about everything in play is a reward of some strength for a gamist.

Now, if the crate cover is a reward, and the PC get's it for good tactics, don't NPCs get the same kinds of rewards. NPCs using strong strategy can be a reward in the victory (giving PCs a hard time) because those NPCs would not have been a sufficient challenge had they not used tactics. After all, in most systems, the NPC gets the cover bonus just like PCs do.

What I'm seeing is that every type of reward I can think of (in the moment fun, sim fulfillment, nar fulfillment, social rewards) with the exception of experience, and 'winning' can be rewarded to a GM just as easily as it can be rewarded to players. I'd go further to argue that 'winning' for a gamist GM is not killing the PCs, but nearly killing them. If you accept that argument then there is only one type of reward that GMs are not usually rewarded.

[John Uckele]

Ooops. DP.

[contracycle]

I'd go further to argue that 'winning' for a gamist GM is not killing the PCs, but nearly killing them. If you accept that argument then there is only one type of reward that GMs are not usually rewarded.

And in Rune, with its rotating GM-ship, it is explicitly rewarded.

I will agree that yes, the GM is getting social rewards equivalent to that of the players.  But I do still share the Noon's expressed concern that the GM is not being rewarded for specific acitons in the way that players are.  IMO this reduces the quality of this feedback, leaving it hard to discern exactly what the players liked and what they did not.  This is all the more of a problem if the GM is operating secret knowledge denied to the players.

Furthermore it seems to me that the SIS can be so different that playing two, interlocking games is quite plausible IMO.

[John Uckele]

Furthermore it seems to me that the SIS can be so different that playing two, interlocking games is quite plausible IMO.

SIS?

[Callan S.]

SIS = shared imaginary space. More info on it in the glossary (in the articles section, see top of screen)

Now, I'd strongly prefer to talk about my sports analogy. But I'll say this about NPC's, if someone risked nothing will you admire them for any success involved? The GM faces zero risk with NPC's, so there's no system feedback there. If the GM could only use a certain amount of NPC's, then your starting to get risk.

And in terms of Rune, yes, that's a strong example of the GM's behaviour being influenced by the rules. And I did not want to mention it because I'm pretty certain the idea would then get pushed to the side with 'Oh, you only do this if you want to do that sort of thing Rune did'.

[M. J. Young]

I believe Hackmaster also has rules stipulating what a referee is permitted to use in terms of force, and expects the referee to play against the players; so in that sense, the referee could win.

However, to look at your sports analogy, I think it's a good one--because if we're trying to play by the new rules, but you're enforcing the old ones, we're going to find someone else to referee our games in the future. If you want to play with us, you do it right.

I am certain that a large part of the reward for every referee is the smiles on the faces of the players, the thanks for a game well run, the nagging for when we'll play again--the reassurance that whatever you did, they liked it.

Given that I think referees are frequently in the passive role (particularly in gamist and narrativist games), that means that the referee is rewarded for making it possible for players to pursue their agendum effectively. That means that the referee's reward for passive gamist play is that the players feel like they've done well, and that the referee offered them a good challenge.

I suspect there are ways to reward that mechanically; but remembering that reward systems are two-pronged, how would that work? If the points earned by the referee for good play are used to purchase the tools for the next adventure, then a referee who isn't doing well is going to be further hampered by not being able to buy what he needs for the next adventure. If the players control those points, then they effectively control the referee's ability to raise the stakes. This just ties the hands of the referee; you can't viably have the players control the number of points that the referee can spend to build the challenges they'll face next time. But what else can you do with a gamist reward for a referee? What benefit can the referee have from the reward? I don't see it, unless there's an adversarial relationship established (Hackmaster) and the points earned are able to be objectively calculated.

Oh, and regarding Multiverser, I did not mean to imply that I didn't want the gamist play in the game. The game drifts by design; the players who are gamists in my Multiverser games were all gamists in previous games. No one has any notion that they shouldn't be. The idea from the beginning was to let every player do what he wanted within the game, whatever that was, and it has been achieved rather successfully most of the time. I've played it gamist myself, quite a bit, when I was in the right world for it.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

Okay, I want to step away from hackmaster and rules that pit GM against players. Plenty of GM's challenge players without resorting to a Vs mode, the idea is to reinforce this through rewards.

And I'd like to step away from the players being happy is the GM's reward. I don't understand how that's applicable when this doesn't apply to players...why have rules that give players bonuses and such when players could just enjoy the GM smiling at them and giving them a pat on the back?

I'll stipulate the problem I'm trying to address here: Without rewards that guide a GM toward a certain CA, they can easily start looking for rewards in all sorts of different places. By rewards I mean they may start looking for the group to enjoy the atmosphere of a town festival, or start roleplaying a treat. So the GM can enjoy himself because otherwise he's got nothing.

It's a little hard to illustrate except by giving examples in relation to players. Eg, removing spiritual attributes from TROS. What would a player do in TROS if there were no spiritual attributes? Perhaps really refine their sword play skills (as players)? Or really start examining the world in fine detail.

Lovely and drifty. But SA's are in there to really give the whole thing solid direction. Instead of expecting the GM to round them up into addressing premise, the system supports it.

Likewise, should players just be left to say 'play this way or we'll find another ref'? Why no system support? With the number of times I've heard 'player feedback shows them the way', it sounds like a design preference much like 'all RPG's need a combat section'.

But what else can you do with a gamist reward for a referee? What benefit can the referee have from the reward? I don't see it, unless there's an adversarial relationship established (Hackmaster) and the points earned are able to be objectively calculated.

Okay, there are plenty of other ways of rewarding.

For instance, if as a group you round robin, the GM can have his PC (regardless of whether his PC's present or not in game) recieve XP based on how he ran the game. Even if you don't round robin, I think many GM's would like to have a 'pet' PC they grow through play just since it's fun to develope a character through legitimately gained rewards.

Also you can have some title system. Feedback from players is great, so assisting this with system support so certain game titles can be won (by various methods that support your CA) and noted by the GM turns it into something solid. What do titles get you in game? Nothing. They are the same as sports trophies that do nothing practical...but should none the less not be underestimated.

Much like building a PC, some awards could be used to build a villain. All the rest of the game world resources are fully available...the idea is that when/if the PC's meet this villain, he's not just some quickly made up NPC, he's hard earned and his toughness is legitimate. Note: This dude doesn't even have to be the main villain...up to the GM.

That's all I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure there are many more.

Oh, and regarding Multiverser, I did not mean to imply that I didn't want the gamist play in the game.

Don't worry, I was just giving a perspective on why it might happen rather. I didn't think you ment that.