[Crazed and Feral] Reward system

[Andrew Morris]

Also, if I offer anything too mechanical or tangible as a reward, there's a real danger the players will play to "win". Which isn't what I want at all.

Whoa! Have you played Capes? You can easily have five people at the table who want a cool superhero story, and one player who just wants to win. And you know what? It works out just fine, because the way you "win" in Capes is by creating conflicts that the other players care about. I don't think that offering a reward or "win condition" at all excludes your goal of telling a cool story.

[Graham W]

Whoa! Have you played Capes? You can easily have five people at the table who want a cool superhero story, and one player who just wants to win. And you know what? It works out just fine, because the way you "win" in Capes is by creating conflicts that the other players care about. I don't think that offering a reward or "win condition" at all excludes your goal of telling a cool story.

Oh, damn you all, this always happens. Just when I think I've got the answer, you give me another game to read. :)

I had a look through Capes Lite. It's interesting: because it's all about goal creation, creating a goal gives everything something to work on. Very clever.

I wonder if there's a way of doing something similar. For example, you could say that someone who breaks one of their moral codes gets the opportunity to pose the next moral dilemma? That way there's an incentive for players to put themselves in moral dilemmas - but the reward for facing that dilemma actually creates more of a game for other characters. Or something similar.

Thanks, Andrew, very useful.

Graham

[Andrew Morris]

Oh, damn you all, this always happens. Just when I think I've got the answer, you give me another game to read.

Heh. Capes is well worth it.

I had a look through Capes Lite. It's interesting: because it's all about goal creation, creating a goal gives everything something to work on. Very clever.

For example, you could say that someone who breaks one of their moral codes gets the opportunity to pose the next moral dilemma? That way there's an incentive for players to put themselves in moral dilemmas - but the reward for facing that dilemma actually creates more of a game for other characters. Or something similar.

Yes, but that only works if people care about having the right to pose moral questions to others, which might or might not be the case -- I don't know your players. Also, this would encourage players to break their moral codes -- is that what you were going for?

Something else you might want to check out, even if just for ideas, is Adam Cierling's post on his LARP system, Ends and Means. He also has actual play posts here and here.

[Graham W]

Hang on, hang on. I know what I want to do. It involves using a horror movie convention: nasty things happen to characters who make bad moral choices. Or a variation on it.

Before the game, I'll create a poll, either on the Internet or at the convention. For example:

1. A werewolf attacks you. Do you a. shoot it or b. talk to it, hoping there is some part of the human left inside?
2. An animal has a painful disease. Do you a. Kill it, knowing this will devastate the owner or b. Let it live, knowing the animal will suffer?

And so on.

Then, whenever someone makes that moral choice in the game, they'll get points depending on whether the poll sample agreed or disagreed with their choice. If the poll agreed, that's positive points; if it disagreed, that's negative points. People who don't make moral choices stay on zero points.

People with positive points take on the hero role: they get something which makes them more likely to survive, perhaps a gun. People with negative points take on the villain role: they get something which makes them powerful but means they're ultimately doomed. People who are on or around zero points are werewolf fodder.

I really like this, although it needs refining. It reminds me of computer games such as Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic, which encourages people to choose between the Light or the Dark sides of the force. Either way, you become powerful, but you need to choose.

It also encourages people to make moral choices and get involved in dilemmas. I like that players are rewarded whichever decision they make. And I like that the GM doesn't decide on the morality.

(The poll could also be a poll of the players in the game, of course).

Do give me feedback if you've got it.

[Adam Cerling]

I think that a poll idea has a lot of potential! I'd encourage you to poll the players of the game by secret ballot before play begins. It will mean more to them to be judged by their fellows than by a random sampling of the Internet.

The poll will also get them thinking about those situations, so that they may be more responsive to them when they materialize during play. Perhaps they will even drive play toward those choices if they think it will win them points!

You'll have to phrase the questions carefully, though. For example, your first question begins with "A werewolf attacks you." That makes me think (b) isn't even an option, since I'll be dead before I can get three words in. I'd like the question more if it began "A werewolf has crept almost close enough to attack."

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

I would suggest perhaps more options and trying to create the questions to involve the player more in the Outcome.

1. A werewolf attacks you. Do you a. shoot it or b. talk to it, hoping there is some part of the human left inside?
2. An animal has a painful disease. Do you a. Kill it, knowing this will devastate the owner or b. Let it live, knowing the animal will suffer?

I agree that one doesn't offer a choice, and two doesn't involve the player enough. I would suggest rewording them to something like this:

1. You're out in the woods hunting from a tree stand. You see your friend Jim approach, but before he gets close enough for you to call out, you see him quickly change into a Werewolf. You'd don't think he saw you, do you:

A. Sit quiet and hope he goes away?
B. Call out and say, "Jim WTF?"
C. Shoot him with the high powered rifle you have with you?

2. You are housesitting for your mother, who is on a cruise and can't be reached by phone. Her cat has gotten really sick and when you take it to the vet, the vet informs you the cat has a debilitating disease, and it is going to be in pain until it dies. The vet is very sure the cat will still be alive when your mother returns, do you:

A. End the cat's suffering.
B. Wait until your Mother returns so she has a last chance to see the cat she cares about, and then she can decide what to do?

-clyde

[Jason Morningstar]

I have to say that is an interesting and very fun solution, Graham. 

Personally I'd keep the duality intact - either/or, with no middle ground.  And if possible, make the decisions *painful*, with no real obvious "correct" answer -

Kill a werewolf, who also happens to be your daughter or
Leave her alone, and doom twenty innocents to certain death at her hands.

Just a suggestion.  Of course if there is this sort of moral ambiguity, I don't know how you can rank them by a good/evil scale.

--Jason

[Graham W]

Useful stuff. Excellent.

I think that a poll idea has a lot of potential! I'd encourage you to poll the players of the game by secret ballot before play begins. It will mean more to them to be judged by their fellows than by a random sampling of the Internet.

Yes, absolutely. It also has the nice effect that the game is tailored to the players. They can choose, collectively, what kind of game they want: one where it's heroic to help those you love or one where it's heroic to stand on your own and fight your corner.

Also, if you add in questions like:

3. A group of you are stuck in a farm, with werewolves approaching. Would it be more heroic to:
a. Inscribe ancient runes on the walls to ward them away?
b. Load up on guns and start blasting?

Then the players get to decide whether it's a mystical game, where physical weapons can't hurt werewolves, or a practical game, where magic is nonsense and anything falls if you fire enough bullets at it. And I like that idea of the players defining their own game.

Adam and Clyde, thanks for the rephrasing comments, will work on it.

Personally I'd keep the duality intact - either/or, with no middle ground. And if possible, make the decisions *painful*, with no real obvious "correct" answer

Yes, absolutely. Make them genuine dilemmas, without an easy solution, and don't let players dodge making a decision..

Just a suggestion. Of course if there is this sort of moral ambiguity, I don't know how you can rank them by a good/evil scale.

Luckily, I think I do...

Thanks very much. I think I've got all I need now so, unless you've any closing comments, we can let this thread die quietly.