Reward systems need not be unified.

[Vaxalon]

I haven't actually done it, but it's one of the aims of a game I'm designing (on and off) tentatively called "Guildmaster".

[Jason Lee]

In your last post you seems to be saying that the two reward cycles work in parallel with minimal interaction. You might want to consider whether there is a larger cycle containing both parallel cycles.

I'd just like to reiterate this, because I suspect it'll hit the heart of the issue. 

For these different reward systems to truly be independent the rewards themselves cannot carry over to these different phases of play.  Let's say you are, just as an example, playing D&D. If you spend the XP you get from killing stuff during the kill-em-all phase on a social skill, then happen to roll that social skill during the talking-about-stuff phase, your rewards systems are not independent but part of a whole.  If the rewards do not carry over, then I'd hesitate to say you are using the same system at all during the different phases.

[komradebob]

Hmm, this thread has got me thinking.

At the end of the day, aren't all rewards about social recognition of one's contribution to the group's play experience?

Anyway, I've been muddling over a concept for a reward system for incoherent/multi-focus gaming. Its basis is the Academy Awards. Here's how it works:

Grab some 3"x5" cards. Before your game session, get all of the participants together and hand out some cards and pens. Each person writes down an award category, basically similar to Academy Awards categories if applied to gaming. Simple stuff: Best portrayal of a..., Funniest ad-lib, Best tactical thinking in a fight, Best true to character portrayal, Most sportsmanlike conduct in the face of in-game adversity, whatever. The categories that people come up with will undoubtedly tell you something about each player's preferred style of play, as well as the group's collective preferences.

The object here is to come up with more categories than participants. If the game has a GM, be sure to include categories that the GM can be nominated for as well. The Academy Awards are for more than just actors, after all. When you've got enough categories, pull in the cards, shuffle them face down or throw them in a hat or bowl and put them aside.

Play your regular session, but leave time at the end of the night for your awards ceremony. Optionally, after the game is over for the evening, have another round of category creation, and throw those cards in with the other ones. Give eveybody some scraps of paper. You'll need them for voting.

Okay. Draw out three or so category cards. You don't need to draw a a number of cards equal to the players. This doesn't have to be a happy, smiley, feel-good kind of thing- go ahead and be cut throat if you feel like it.

Flip a card and reveal the category. Go around the table and nominate players for that category. You can nominate yourself and you can skip nominating anyone if you'd like.
Try to give an example when you nominate someone of why you think they deserve the award for that category.

Take a secret ballot vote. Everbody writes the name of the nominee they're voting for, folds the slip, and passes it to the person flipping the category cards ( probably the GM). You can either count the votes and reveal the winner immediately, or you can leave the slips and move on to revealing the next category card. Whatever floats yor boat.

Eventually, the group will have gone through the reveal category-nominate-vote process for all of the cards. The winners in each category will have been announced, perhaps appropriate speeches ( "Thanks Mom") will have been given. Now it is time for tangible rewards.

Start with the winner of the first category. They get to suggest what they want as a reward. Go around the table, and allow each other participant to suggest a reward in turn. Again, players may skip if they wish. Once everyone has gotten a chance to suggest a reward, there is a reward vote, again hidden ballot. Count up the votes. That is the reward that the winner of the category gets as a prize. The suggested rewards can be anything-xps, levels, other in game goodies, the right to pick the next game played, setting suggestions, free beer, whatever. Afterall, the group as a whole is going to decide what they feel the most appropriate reward is by majority vote (please no hanging chads!). Repeat the process for the remaining category winners.

This system isn't meant to be entirely fair, but is meant to help a group who may be playing with very different personal goals communicate with one another. It may also help drift a particular game to a play style that is more agreeable to the participants, and give the various players a better idea of what each one finds important and what individual likes and dislikes are present. Also, it helps to act as a sort of de-briefing for a game session.

As I said, it isn't particularly meant for a coherent/monofocussed game. Those games probably already have a reward system in place that follows the logic of the game. In games that potentially have a polyfocus set up ( like my favs, the oWoD series), it may help to clarify playstyle for everyone involved.

Thoughts?

[Master Marx]

At the end of the day, aren't all rewards about social recognition of one's contribution to the group's play experience?

My thoughts exactly! Your Academy Awards suggestion was a fun read and I'm sure going to try it some day. If I get a chance. I think it is important to have a "rewards mechanic" that is open/versatile enough to allow for on the fly rewards, minor encouragments and lol-awards. I remember as a fresh GM back in the Good Old Days how I used to give XP (the game was something from Palladium) to players who did, consciously or by freak dice throws, something that astounded the other players, made everyone in the room burst out laughing or just create  a great moment of shared excitement. The fact that we still talk (when we get together) about some of these things is pretty amazing to me. I know it is nerdish to talk about old games, but that chance alone is worth 200 XP in any game I care to GM!

I also made on the fly statements to reward a certain kind of dramatic roleplaying: any character who willingly sacrificed himself or put himself in grave danger got a pretty big chunk of XP. After making that statement the group somehow functioned much better. Another thing was that we discovered how fun it was to run away from a fight, to just scamper of and leave the other guys taking on the enemy, now even more vastly outnumbered. Even the players who who did the actual "heroic last stand" enjoyed it(as it gave them a chance to stand in a blaze of glory). So I made a house rule that to fight for a just cause against incredible odds was worth 2000 XP. To scamper away from the same kind of fight was worth 500 XP. Naturally, you have, as a GM, to adjust the awards to the group and what kind of playing they actually enjoy.

To tie this back to RPG Theory... Make sure your award theory is flexible enough to be fine-tuned to the playing style of your group!

Postscript: Many RPG's have awards for failing: sometimes a spectacular failure should be awarded higher than a common success. Or perhaps, award any roll, action or character that brings the story forward and helps the group enjoy actual play!

[Vaxalon]

When it comes right down to it, there are two rewards in a roleplaying game; I'll call them intrinsic and the extrinsic.

Intrinsic rewards are rewards where the game gives the player greater authority, usually in the form of a more capable character.  This is the kind of reward we're all used to; XP, advancement, what have you.

Extrinsic rewards are rewards the participants give each other on a social level.  Approbation, accolades, I've even heard of monetary rewards.

The reward system can also have intrinsic and/or extrinsic penalties.

You can tie intrinsic and extrinsic rewards together; for example, in Toon, if anyone says or does something that makes all the other players laugh, then their characters are considered "Boggled" and the acting player basically gets a free action.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

From The Provisional Glossary:

Reward System
(a) The personal and social gratification derived from role-playing, a feature of Creative Agenda. (b) In-game changes, usually to a player-character, a feature of System and Character. (c) As a subset to (b), improvement to one or more of the character?s Components. Typically, the term refers to how (a) is facilitated by (b).

It's not supposed to be mysterious, folks.

I strongly suggest that this topic is most productively handled through discussions in Actual Play. Let's call this one done and go over there.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

I think this comes around to my point, which is that a) and b) in the provisional glossary need not be as closely tied as Forge theory seems to say they are.  The two systems run as much independent of each other as not.  In fact, character advancement can IMPEDE social gratification!

I can see, however, that it will take AP examples to drive the point home, so I'll leave it alone until I can post there.

[Ron Edwards]

Sighhhh ...

No, no, let's do it here after all. Before we go into Actual Play on different pages.

What you may not be seeing is that, as defined ...

... if (b) fails to function as a component of (a), then (b) is not part of a Reward System at all. At best it's a bit of added Color. Much more likely, it's a distraction, an impediment, and a strong potential source of both incoherent and dysfunctional play.

Thus your point that a given character-improvement mechanism may not be part of (and in fact can screw up) a social-gratification process is absolutely correct.

And if, indeed, the screwing-up is happening, then my call is that this entire instance of play is, itself, screwed up. And no "reward system" can be identified. Which is to say, very simply, that we would be looking at a horrible example of people not having fun.

Best,
Ron