Narrativist games and "winning"?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Frank,

To answer your question:

In general, there is a very tight connection between these two things. Remember that I consider the reward system to be the center of System, and System to be the "motor" of Exploration. With these points in mind, it follows that the reward system is the key procedural expression of a Creative Agenda. When you talk about strategizing in in-game terms, you are hooking the reward system (as it should be) to all other components of System - character creation and resolution, specifically, and more generally to all other components of Exploration (imagining stuff, basically "in-game" content of any kind)..

However, specifically, the usual assumption that such attention to in-game or mechanics-based issues, in terms of goals or strategy, is Gamist is mistaken. The paragraph above applies to all role-playing.

People who consider such attention to be beneath them, or not good role-playing, are merely expressing the point that in their games the reward system relies mainly on being appreciated for your skills at depiction, colorful dialogue, and (in many cases) obedience to cues that are offered. The whole paragraph applies to them as well, but they make the error of thinking it applies only to numbers and to such issues as one finds in combat.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

What you seem to be saying, among other things, Ron, is that a game can have two reward systems...

Appreciation as the reward for narrative play, and advancement as the reward for tactical play.

Am I on the money with with that observation?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Fred,

H'm, I don't really see it that way. I see reward systems as either being unified (perhaps with many interrelated parts, perhaps hierarchical parts) or broken - either the parts don't work well together or the whole thing fails to apply to tons of expected play.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

I disagree with that. 

I don't believe that reward systems must be unified in order to be functional.

I think you CAN have an advancement reward system that runs on one level, and a social reward system that runs on another, both of them independent of the other, and both of them functional.  That has been how all of the DnD games I have ever played have worked.

As the play shifts between tactical and social scenes, the two different reward systems switch off.  The parts don't NEED to work well together, because they're not operating at the same time.  The "whole thing" applies to tons of expected play, because it switches mode to handle the play.

Trying to make one reward system that handles all situations seems odd.

[Ron Edwards]

This is a pretty good example of thread-drift, Fred. If you'd like, feel free to start a new thread.

Here, everyone, let's stay on topic.

Best,
Ron

[Frank T]

Right. If someone had some analysis to offer on my actual play example, that'd be great.

- Frank