Reward Systems in LRP

[Vaxalon]

So how about this... at the end of the session, hold a "wrap party", everyone writes the name of someone to receive an award, and why, on a piece of paper, and drops it in a hat... then take them out and read them.

[Callan S.]

Not necessarily so.  For certain kinds of players (read: the "immersion" issue rears its head again here...) the moving of a glass might be an extension of simply being in character. It's an autotelic expression of a character habit.  "I'm playing (or being) Michael, and he has a habit of rearranging small things. Thus it is pleasurable for me to act out that habit of his, witnesses or not."

It's possible to play a single person game, during a group game. That doesn't mean that the single player game links up with the other group game because its done at the same time.

[Callan S.]

Callan - The biggest single issue with the 'weeding out' of people who can't be trusted to distribute rewards is finding them.

Afterall, who decides if they can't be trusted? Me?

There is only one of me, and if (for example) there are 300-3,000 players in a single event then I can't ever hope to find them...

So, I would need people to watch the players and remove rights to attend/distribute rewards from other participants - we may as well call them Referees at that point....

Simon

It's funny how you can't find them, but I imagine come reward giving time, they quickly find you. Think about how you can use that behaviour.

As for deciding who can be trusted? No, it's about finding out who is interested in the same activity as you. Surely you know what you like, and that if someone else has very different interests, it's not going to work out?

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

It's possible to play a single person game, during a group game. That doesn't mean that the single player game links up with the other group game because its done at the same time.

According to very common views within the Nordic cliques, the intensity of an individual player's personal interpretation of a game translates into a stronger experience for everyone. The basic idea is that the personal commitment/immersion of each feeds the same phenomenon in others and also reflects back at the originators, creating a feedback loop that reinforces the game experiences of all participants. That way the unobserved movements of a glass do become a part of the group game. Iif one believes a "group game" exists, that is. I personally refuse to acknowledge anything beyond personal interpretations of a joint experience. The players never experience the "same" game" as their fellows.) But again, this diverges from the original thread point.

[Callan S.]

The moved glass affected one player (the one who moved it) and that player then went on to affect the group game.

Despite the causality, it's outside the group game like drinking a mug of strong coffee would be. The ongoing effects of both can effect the group game, but aren't doing so directly themselves.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

The ongoing effects of both can effect the group game, but aren't doing so directly themselves.

If the coffee was drunk /within/ the game's reality (SIS/diegesis/whatever), then they are equivocal as far as influence goes, yes. Which shifts us nicely ack to original topic: since those are affecting the game's reality, what makes them any less rewardable than saving the princess or entertaining guests at court? As all elements that happen in-game essentially contribute, rewarding the parts that are visible is actually quite silly.

It's similar to the unpleasant fact that the people who are given prominent characters are most often the ones rewarded by both game masters and peer votes simply due to higher visibility. That's why we'v shifted away from normal reward systems, including "solve the plot, feel good" rewards.

-Jiituomas

[Simon Marks]

That's why we'v shifted away from normal reward systems, including "solve the plot, feel good" rewards.

I take it that you are refering to the Turku school of LRP then?

I only assume this because of the location you give...

Anyhow, care to elaborate on the reward systems you use?

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

I take it that you are refering to the Turku school of LRP then? I only assume this because of the location you give.

Nope. I'm very much against the hyper-individualistic larp ideals the Turku school espoused while it was active, even though some of my ideals are occasionally alike (and may stem from theirs.)

Anyhow, care to elaborate on the reward systems you use?

The approach is usually refered to as "experientialism", because the core idea is that the participation of a game should be so rewarding in itself that no additional reward system need be imposed upon it. The "otherness" of the game should suffice.

So ideally every game is a communal (but not collective) autotelic experience that rewards itself. This naturally moves such larps away from the more traditional games, as both mechanics and far-reaching plotlines (as opposed to personal ones) tend to be disruptive to experientialism. Note that exceptions even within this ideal exist, and I'm only representing one small design clique in this regard.

For example, one of my most successful larps ever ("Waiting for Lucifer") consisted of nothing but 20 characters spending 24 hours in a remote location. There was some potential for conflict in the character material, but every player was aware of the fact that there would be no new GM-introduced plotlines during the game. So the sole rewards came from whatever the players came up with. I'd call it the "simple joy of playing the game" reward system. Would I have introduced any external systems to this, the game would not have worked as it was intended.

(I'll elaborate if needed. The thread should probably be split, if that happens.)

-Jiituomas

[Callan S.]

The ongoing effects of both can effect the group game, but aren't doing so directly themselves.

If the coffee was drunk /within/ the game's reality (SIS/diegesis/whatever), then they are equivocal as far as influence goes, yes. Which shifts us nicely ack to original topic: since those are affecting the game's reality, what makes them any less rewardable than saving the princess or entertaining guests at court?

Because you reward people for behaviour you would like to see happen again. Reward messing around with a glass by yourself and people will do that, more and more.

Do you want to reward players to spend more time by themselves?

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

Because you reward people for behaviour you would like to see happen again. Reward messing around with a glass by yourself and people will do that, more and more. Do you want to reward players to spend more time by themselves?

I want to reward the intensity in which players participate in the game, not their actions within it. If that means occasional solitude or some in-game activity that influences only them, then yes, I want to make those participatory forms rewarding as well.

The trick how this can be accomlplished in a balanced manner is that I include everything I want to happen for certain in the game into that participatory intensity. So by writing good characters with enough interaction potential, I make sure the game contains enough activity to be enjoyable by doing-aspected players and pre-designated events will eventually proceed where I need them. Basically, exploration of the facets of your character and the game environment should be prioritized as the principal (self)rewarding factors, and everything else included in those two as secondary traits that happen if the players really concentrate on living the character and SIS to the fullest.

It must be noted, though, that I have the advantage of working with a large player base that is quite familiar with the ideology of sublimating what Forgeans call G and N tendencies into a heightened enjoyment of S playing. Thus what works here may not be easy elsewhere. Nor is it necessarily desirable: larps that have completely different reward and game presence systems can be as enjoyable (or even more) or as artistic (or even more) as the style towards which I strive. (For examples of similar use of subsumation, but into G or N rewarding, see Tan 2003 and Koljonen 2004)

-Jiituomas

[M. J. Young]

You say

When we designed Multiverser, we didn't include a reward system. I'm not sure we even thought about it. We devised a rather simulationist method for characters to improve themselves through practice and use of their abilities, and having done that we saw no other practical need for experience points or similar rewards.

Emphasis mine

According to my interpretation of Ron's article - this is a reward system.

There is a big difference between a character skill improvement system and a reward system. The problem you're having is that in most games the character skill improvements are the rewards--but these are very gamist reward concepts. In a simulationist game, a player is rewarded by being given the opportunity to explore new and different imaginings. In a narrativist game, a player is rewarded by being more empowered to address the premise.

I know that the Multiverser skill improvement system is not a reward mechanism, for several reasons.

[*]At least half of my players ignore it completely. They run their characters like real people in a real world, without any reference to whether time off for training would make them a more potent character, or whether doing this will improve their ability at some skill. Their characters improve when I decide that they've been using particular skills a lot and really should be better at them by now--not as a reward, but as an accurate portrayal of the character.[*]Eero has in another thread pointed to the fact that games which enable characters to power up by practicing encourage players to practice rather than adventure. Multiverser has this aspect going in spades, really. You can find a way to withdraw from any sort of adventure and spend months practicing, and become better. If the skill improvement system is the reward system, then that's what the system rewards--but that's not what players do, generally. They are rewarded not by building powerful characters in their downtime, but by creating interesting adventures or stories around them.[/list:u]Really, skill improvements are only a reward if the system is designed primarily to pose challenges for the characters to overcome in a manner which enables the player to show off his tactical skills--that is, gamist systems. In simulationist games, skill improvements are not a reward but a means of accurately representing character growth. In narrativist games, skill improvements are not a a reward but a means of enhancing characterization.

--M. J. Young

[Simon Marks]

Really, skill improvements are only a reward if the system is designed primarily to pose challenges for the characters to overcome in a manner which enables the player to show off his tactical skills--that is, gamist systems. In simulationist games, skill improvements are not a reward but a means of accurately representing character growth. In narrativist games, skill improvements are not a a reward but a means of enhancing characterization.

My understanding of the article was that anything that increased the Players ability to interact and effect the SIS could be considered a reward.
These are (obviously) not the only type of reward - but all such increases are a reward.

(Which is why xp for attendance was odd to me, interacting with SIS is a reward - so surely no more is needed?)

*edit Spulling...*

[Callan S.]

Because you reward people for behaviour you would like to see happen again. Reward messing around with a glass by yourself and people will do that, more and more. Do you want to reward players to spend more time by themselves?

I want to reward the intensity in which players participate in the game, not their actions within it. If that means occasional solitude or some in-game activity that influences only them, then yes, I want to make those participatory forms rewarding as well.

The trick how this can be accomlplished in a balanced manner is that I include everything I want to happen for certain in the game into that participatory intensity.

Emphasis mine.

What do you mean by balance? Balanced between players? Balance between players so nobody is put ahead of anyone else? I think you may be asking for some method of judging an activity so it's balanced. But if a tree falls in the woods and nobody sees it, can you judge how well it fell? It requires a witness, if it is to be judged.

I'm really seeing a simulationist issue here, where it's presumed that if the tree falls, it falls regardless of whether it is witnessed and is part of the game. And thus, if it's part of the game, there must be some way to judge it.

If were finding difficulty in judging it in a balanced way, it could be a design challenge. Or more fundimentally, it could be that it "is part of the game" is a false assumption. And that's why were having trouble judging, because were trying to judge an assumed part of the group game, which is absent.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

What do you mean by balance? Balanced between players? Balance between players so nobody is put ahead of anyone else? I think you may be asking for some method of judging an activity so it's balanced. But if a tree falls in the woods and nobody sees it, can you judge how well it fell? It requires a witness, if it is to be judged.

No, I mean a balance of potential that is created in advance. The idea that all players will have a similar amount of things to do during the game. I usually try to make them match on all levels, meaning that I'll give every character some social plot material, a personal quirk (which brings the glass back to this equation, and some chance to shine in front of other players for a moment. Yet all these are created so that they serve the experiential nature of the game, and are essentially secondary /tools/ that aid in making the game's otherness rewarding.

It isn't easy to write a lot of characters to even roughly equal potential, but it can be done. A harder trick, however, is to convince the players that there are no central characters: far too many players, even very experienced Sim-oriented ones, think visibility equals importance equals status. No amount of game design will convince them that a solo act can be as rewarding in an autotelic sense as an epic, public one. That has to be done by training the players to accept a new perspective, by broadening the concept of reward for them (permanently or for that larp only).

Thus in one sense you are absolutely correct, Callan. The glass that has no direct bearing on events can not be judged in itself to be an important contribution that should be rewarded. But by perspective changes, it is possible to make it rewarding in itself in such a manner that its influence will contribute to a better, more rewarding, game for everyone. And through that, eliminate mechanical forms of rewarding players or judging them beyond their ability to enjoy the larp for what it is.

-Jiituomas

[Callan S.]

Thus in one sense you are absolutely correct, Callan. The glass that has no direct bearing on events can not be judged in itself to be an important contribution that should be rewarded. But by perspective changes, it is possible to make it rewarding in itself in such a manner that its influence will contribute to a better, more rewarding, game for everyone. And through that, eliminate mechanical forms of rewarding players or judging them beyond their ability to enjoy the larp for what it is.

I agree with that. I think for the glass example and similar LARP activities, such a perspective change is the best idea rather than mechanical rewards.