[Lendrhald] A system to reward players, not characters?

[David Berg]

My buddy A and I are co-designing a game.  We've each run campaigns with 4 players, both have been mostly quite enjoyable, but the enjoyment has derived from rather disparate sources.

In A's game, 3 of the 4 players were engineers, who have traditionally been rules-exploiters and game-breakers, among other things.  A's game gave them nothing they could break or exploit for unfair advantages according to the rules.  However, A was sure to fill his game with complicated physical situations, and the engineers greatly enjoyed problem-solving in these.  Stuck on the second floor of a three-story wooden structure with giant rats swarming down the chimney and only furniture, fire and swords at their disposal, everyone had a great time achieving an effective solution to the dilemma.  Mostly, it worked because A had a very detailed dscription of the environment (what's the biggest chair made out of? are any parts of it hollow?), a grasp of physics no worse than his players, and had guessed correctly at an appropriate difficulty level.  At the end, players were congratulating each other for good ideas and reveling in the combo of resourcefulness and luck (die rolls were involved in fighting rats and jamming objects into small spaces) that had allowed them to escape alive.

In my game, I have one player (a med student) who wants to be important and change the world, one player (a banker) who likes killing stuff and drugging people, one player (an actor) who likes investigating things and realistically portraying a kid, and one player (a political lackey) who likes strategy.  The banker's been happiest when standing victorious atop a pile of werewolf corpses, the other players' eyes wide at his combat effectiveness.  The med student's been happiest when conferring with NPC superiors who value the results he's produced as an investigator.  The actor's been happiest when crawling down a hole and finding a tunnel coated in corrosive sludge, as well as when interacting with the politician's character, who's somewhat adopted him -- the two of them have cracked up out of game after many in-game conversations portrayed with particular flair.  The politician's most enjoyed the approval and congratulations on his successful plan to hoist the injured guy through the hole in the cave ceiling without setting off the magical alarm.

My point is that, on the subject of social rewards, here's what I've observed:

As a GM, I try to know my players, and put them in situations where they can get involved with either realistic functionalism, hidden secrets, or logistical obstacles, or other stuff, depending on what I think they'd like.  If I do a good job, a fertile ground for social rewards is established.  I have trouble imagining how something I read in a rulebook could make this process easier or more successful.

However, a poster here recently explained to me the concept and function of a rewards system.  "How could this possibly be a mechanical game system?" I thought.  "If one's goal is to reinforce certain social practices which one's gaming group enjoys, don't the reinforcements need to be tailored to the tastes and preferences of those specific players?  And doesn't that, by definition, rule out the mechanics of the game, which are intended for use by various types of players and groups?"

If I sound like I am naysaying years of Forge wisdom here (am I? I have no idea), that is not my intent, I am just trying to get a handle on how a lot of the new concepts I'm running into might be implemented.  (Sydney, I read that entire thread you linked, and did not find an answer to my question.)

Thanks,
-Dave

[Sydney Freedberg]

Your example is actually a really good one. Imagine how much easier your friend's GMing job would've been, and how much more easily other players with other GMs could've replicated the same kind of fun, if they'd been playing a game with pages of easily-referenced tables on the strength of various materials, typical household objects, ready-to-go floorplans, etc., all translated from English/metric units into game-mechanical terms designed to fit precisely with the combat, movement, and gadgeteering systems? Compare this hypothetical game -- "Physics: the Engineering," or maybe just a very detailed GURPS supplement -- to trying to get the same people to play through the same scenario in D&D, or World of Darkness: The GM would have to prep massively and wing things constantly (e.g. your friend A's "a grasp of physics no worse than his players" and his ability to "guess...at an appropriate difficulty level").

Now, that's a question of "system does matter" in general; what does that specifically have to say about reward systems? First of all, a game gives you lots of game-mechanical guidance and options for a specific way of problem-solving is definitely rewarding players who solve problems in that way. Even if character improvement isn't at issue, character survival is a hell of a reward!
Now, tie in a character-improvement system that makes you better at the chosen form of problem-solving for every time you succeed (or even try and fail) to solve a problem in that way, and you have a very powerful feedback loop.
Thus, D&D works beautifully if you enjoy fighting and killing dangerous enemies: There are lots of rules to give you interesting options on how to do it (especially in the d20 version, with all the Feats), and the more you do it the better you get at it. D&D tends to sputter when you try to do intrigue or chivalric romance, because the rules really don't tell you how in an interesting way ("Okay, roll your Charisma! Roll your Charisma again! Again! Again!") and they don't give you much of a mechanical reward for doing it, so the players and GM have to do all the work of making these activities fun with no help from the system.
So you end up relying entirely on the GM and the players having enough personal knowledge to make something up on the spot -- which can be a lot of fun, and thus a hugely powerful reward system, but a purely informal and unwritten one. We RPGers are so used to doing this to make our games work that we take it for granted, but in fact, every time we have to resort to such do-it-yourself to make the game enjoyable, that's evidence that the game designers didn't do their job.

Now, the corrolary of all this is that you can't design a game that will maximize fun for everybody. (Although people with different tastes can find areas of overlap and enjoy the same thing, if only as a change of pace). In fact, trying to include something for everyone is the best way to ensure that nobody really enjoys it -- if you don't go crazy trying to design the damn thing first. But that doesn't simply mean that every single group of gamers has to invent their own solution, because people don't vary that much: Hack & slash D&D is fun for thousands of people, hundreds of people rave about Dogs in the Vineyard, etc. etc.

In the case of your gaming group -- the "change the world" med student, the "kill and dominate" banker, the "find stuff out" actor, and the "strategist" politico -- everyone's pretty much into being competent and effective. (That doesn't mean that they wouldn't enjoy hard-driving moral dilemma games where it's taken for granted that you're powerful and the question is what you do with it, like Dogs; they've probably never been exposed to that kind of game, so there's no way to tell). So a well-designed system for them might include
(a) 3-4 different but equally viable sets of tactical options, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, in both combat (e.g. beserk attack, ambush, playing it safe, dirty tricks) and interpersonal influence & intrigue (e.g. bluff 'em, empathize & win their sympathy, irresistable logic, intimidation). This rewards your kill/dominate and investigator types by making their creative thinking about how to do their favorite activities actually count, in hard game-mechanical terms, instead of being up to "does the GM think your idea would work or not?"
(b) specific mechanics for how individual actions affect large groups and institutions, and how those larger forces then can affect individuals in turn. This is a huge reward for the "change the world" guy and "strategist," since it makes the linkage between "this cunning or noble thing I do here and now" and "the broader impact of my actions on the world" into something concrete and clearly defined, instead of (again) "does the GM think your idea would work or not?"
(c) character improvement based on risking yourself in a serious way, regardless of whether you suceed or fail (rewards for sucess are amply handled by (b) above). Whereas lots of systems effectively reward you for playing it safe and boring, this would encourage players to take risks and try interesting things, because even if they fail, they still get XPs (or whatever) that makes them better prepared to try again next time.

I fear this discussion is getting dangerously general, so before the moderators start getting antsy, I'd encourage you to ponder how this relates to your specific design goals for Lendrhald and pose specific questions in your other thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113).

[Callan S.]

As a GM, I try to know my players, and put them in situations where they can get involved with either realistic functionalism, hidden secrets, or logistical obstacles, or other stuff, depending on what I think they'd like.  If I do a good job, a fertile ground for social rewards is established.  I have trouble imagining how something I read in a rulebook could make this process easier or more successful.

Rules remain unbiased, even when you become biased. I think being biased is not only likely, but key to each player/GM having fun.

Like your example with the three story structure and rats, what if the GM had a specific answer in mind - so much so, in fact, that he was pumped about the answer. And when the players all come up with their answer and high five each other, the GM just grunts and says no, it doesn't work.

That'd be crap. The common answer is for the GM to become some sort of unbiased monk, who never falls to the temptation of caring about particular stuff.

However, with rules the GM could care about a specific solution. He could look at the players solution and thinks it utterly absurd. But then they use the rules, which are unbiased. And they pull it off and the GM has this 'oh my god' moment. He could not have that moment unless he cared about another solution. And if he did care about another solution, without unbiased rules, he's simply be grunting to players 'nah, doesn't work'. Those are my thoughts.

However, a poster here recently explained to me the concept and function of a rewards system.  "How could this possibly be a mechanical game system?" I thought.  "If one's goal is to reinforce certain social practices which one's gaming group enjoys, don't the reinforcements need to be tailored to the tastes and preferences of those specific players?  And doesn't that, by definition, rule out the mechanics of the game, which are intended for use by various types of players and groups?"

Bold mine.

With chess, it reinforces practices which I don't naturally enjoy. However, at a higher level I like engaging practices that I don't normally enjoy. It's like trying new foods, not because you know you like the food that you haven't tasted yet, but because you like the whole idea of trying new foods. A game system could cater to what the group enjoys/the foods they have eaten before. But it can also cater to the desire to try new foods. This actually means making a game system which produces kind of unfamiliar results. But then again, remember how rewarding beer was, once you learnt to enjoy the bitter taste and not just see it as yuck? Again, my thoughts.

[David Berg]

Imagine how much easier your friend's GMing job would've been, and how much more easily other players with other GMs could've replicated the same kind of fun, if they'd been playing a game with pages of easily-referenced tables on the strength of various materials, typical household objects, ready-to-go floorplans, etc., all translated from English/metric units into game-mechanical terms designed to fit precisely with the combat, movement, and gadgeteering systems?

You are 100% correct.  If I can ever overcome the amount of boredom involved, I will create exactly that.

a game [that] gives you lots of game-mechanical guidance and options for a specific way of problem-solving is definitely rewarding players who solve problems in that way.

Perhaps I have handicapped my system options to an enormous degree by striving for realism.  In my game, the GM's judgment of whether or not something works is intended to be predicated on, "would it work in the real world?" regardless of how much fun that determination is for a player.  It is my hope that these small-scale sacrifices in immediate fun will be outweighed by a larger-scale gain: the players will feel that the gameworld is fully functional, not just there for their benefit, and it will outlive them and the current campaign -- it's as real as imaginary worlds can be, and easy to immerse yourself in.

D&D tends to sputter when you try to do intrigue or chivalric romance, because the rules really don't tell you how in an interesting way ("Okay, roll your Charisma! Roll your Charisma again! Again! Again!")

Your point leads me to observe: By virtue of having a combat system and not having a romance system, D&D appears more intended for fighting than loving, and attracts players with corresponding aims.  So I will take this as a reminder to focus in my material on character activities that I expect players to enjoy.

That said, I don't see how, in most of the situations I mentioned (blocking a chimney, finding a rune, killing a foe, rigging a harness, getting a nod from the emperor), the player rewards (excitement about what the character's accomplished, smiles and praise from other players) benefit much from mechanical supplementation.  ("Cool, I solved the riddle, impressed Bob, and got +1 to my Puzzle skill!"  Which are really the important parts here?)

To the extent that direct-to-player mechanical rewards support doing what makes sense in-game, they seem borderline superfluous, and to the extent that they reward anything that does not make sense in game, they're unacceptable given my realism preference.

and they don't give you much of a mechanical reward for doing it, so the players and GM have to do all the work of making these activities fun with no help from the system.

It seems to me that a system doesn't need to encourage players to do what they already want to do (it simply can't interfere); nor does it need to make success simpler and easier (many players prefer a good challenge and need for creativity); nor does it need to make in-game success more directly rewarding for the player (see +1 to Puzzle above); nor does it need to provide consolation prizes when a character fails (it should suck to fail, for reasons of maintaining some dramatic tension).

The system needs to do a satisfactory job governing action outcomes within the gameworld, but beyond that, I don't see a need for additional rewards, direct to the players.  Does this mean that I have system-lite preferences as a gamer, or am I still missing the point on the potential uses of rewards systems for my game?

So you end up relying entirely on the GM and the players having enough personal knowledge to make something up on the spot . . . every time we have to resort to such do-it-yourself to make the game enjoyable, that's evidence that the game designers didn't do their job.

Maybe they didn't do their job in filling in the holes in the players' and GM's personal knowledge, but that's a matter or providing info, not systems, right?  Every time you do it yourself, that's evidence that the game designers didn't anticipate every possible scenario, right?

If Lendrhald Player A wants to push a 25-pound box on Badguy's head while Badguy's engaged in a fight with Player B, and there's no rule in the rulebook that says whether pushing a heavy box is more like drawing a sword (1 round) or lifting a water barrel (2 rounds) -- and Player B is going to get fatally impaled after the end of 1 more round, and his life depends on Player A's speed, and now the GM has to make a terrible judgment call -- is this an instance of me being a bad designer, or an instance where I get a pass for not writing a two million page rulebook?

I fear this discussion is getting dangerously general, so before the moderators start getting antsy, I'd encourage you to ponder how this relates to your specific design goals for Lendrhald and pose specific questions in your other thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113).

I've done my best to keep this post as directly related to my specific game and play experiences as possible, but I will follow your suggestion shortly.  Before I leave this more general discussion, however, I'd like to see if I've understood your points. 

If your main point (beyond what I've already discussed) is that gameplay enjoyment can be enhanced by simplifying and codifying certain situations (beyond "what would your total options be in reality" and "what would work in reality"), and adding in-game or out-of-game outcomes to that situation resolution (beyond "what would the result be in reality"), then:

I get it, but don't see how I can use it in my current, reality-focused project. 

Alas, I still get the impression that I may be missing the forest for the trees...

I really appreciate your taking the time and effort to introduce me to some new concepts, and if you should tire of the exercise I shall harbor no hard fellings.  I hope this is as fun (or mentally stimulating, at least) for you as it is for me...
-Dave

[David Berg]

Rules remain unbiased, even when you become biased. I think being biased is not only likely, but key to each player/GM having fun.

I'm with you on that.  I wasn't intending to discuss the merits of whether to use an in-game arbitration system, only the merits of whether to use a "reward the player" system beyond reality-governed arbitration.

A game system could cater to what the group enjoys/the foods they have eaten before. But it can also cater to the desire to try new foods. This actually means making a game system which produces kind of unfamiliar results.

Yeah, my current game is a mix of me trying to cater to what the players already like (by presenting certain obstacles), and forcing them to deal with details that enrich the world (taxes, bureaucracy, moon cycles, seasonal cycles, harsh climate, inability to afford horses and armor).  Thus far, dealing with wind, cold, poverty, and bastards in power has frustrated the characters greatly, but the players only mildly, and I am fairly confident it's added to the overall experience...

Hmm, maybe I should make official some rules I used for hypothermia, just so their presence in a rulebook accurately indicates the nature of the game...

[Callan S.]

I'm with you on that.  I wasn't intending to discuss the merits of whether to use an in-game arbitration system, only the merits of whether to use a "reward the player" system beyond reality-governed arbitration.

If I understand you correctly then I'd say I think of those two things as exactly the same thing. A rule which determines damage from a fall isn't a 'in game arbitration' rule while a 'I give you a point from my pool cause you really contributed to the conflict IMO' isn't a 'reward the player' rule. To me, both reward players and both influence the game world. There's no distinction between them.

Okay, a complicated way of saying "I think I am talking about what you want". But I'll leave it if it doesn't fit.

[Ricky Donato]

That said, I don't see how, in most of the situations I mentioned (blocking a chimney, finding a rune, killing a foe, rigging a harness, getting a nod from the emperor), the player rewards (excitement about what the character's accomplished, smiles and praise from other players) benefit much from mechanical supplementation.  ("Cool, I solved the riddle, impressed Bob, and got +1 to my Puzzle skill!"  Which are really the important parts here?)

To the extent that direct-to-player mechanical rewards support doing what makes sense in-game, they seem borderline superfluous, and to the extent that they reward anything that does not make sense in game, they're unacceptable given my realism preference.

Hi, David,

You say, "To the extent that direct-to-player mechanical rewards support doing what makes sense in-game, they seem borderline superfluous". They are not superfluous, and here's why: they indicate to everyone playing the game that the objective is to do what makes sense in-game. Without that reward, a new player to the game might misunderstand what the point of the game is. But with that reward, it's really clear: the player is rewarded for ensuring that the game world always makes sense.

It seems to me that a system doesn't need to encourage players to do what they already want to do (it simply can't interfere)...

Here is the other benefit of reward systems. Suppose that a player named Joe is the one who said, "Cool, I solved the riddle, impressed Bob, and got +1 to my Puzzle skill!" In the next session, by contrast, Joe is tired from a long day at the office (and doesn't feel like solving the riddle), and Bob is getting on his nerves for whatever reason (so Joe doesn't feel like impressing Bob). That last support, the mechanical one (+1 to Puzzle), is still there to encourage Joe to play the game. It is certainly possible that this might not be enough, but at least it's there, so it might have some benefit for Joe. Without it, though, Joe has no encouragement to play the game, because the other two rewards are supplied by Joe, not the game system.

Does that help?

[David Berg]

A rule which determines damage from a fall isn't a 'in game arbitration' rule while a 'I give you a point from my pool cause you really contributed to the conflict IMO' isn't a 'reward the player' rule. To me, both reward players and both influence the game world. There's no distinction between them.

Sure, saying, "You fell from 70 feet.  If that happened in the real world, you'd die.  Therefore, you die," is a type of reward system.  But I think its effect on play is rather different than a reward system that says, "On top of dying, you also get 25 Embarrassment Points, which means your party members can now loot your corpse and leave you to rot guilt-free."  See my response to Sydney for a more detailed description of the distinction as I see it.

[Judd]

As a GM, I try to know my players, and put them in situations where they can get involved with either realistic functionalism, hidden secrets, or logistical obstacles, or other stuff, depending on what I think they'd like.  If I do a good job, a fertile ground for social rewards is established.  I have trouble imagining how something I read in a rulebook could make this process easier or more successful.

I am setting up a Burning Wheel one-shot right now that answers this kind of question, I think.

Joe can't make it to the game this week and we like to have all three players and the GM together when we play.  So, I suggested a Burning Wheel game, knowing that Bret and Bob, the two remaining players, are hungry to play it.

After a series of e-mails, we agree on the last elves who haven't gone west, left in an elven citadel, perhaps guarding something.  They have stayed out of some kind of passion or anger or vendetta, yet to be determined.

I won't know what the adventure is going to be until I see their Beliefs, which they will write during the character creation.  Their Beliefs will tell me what about this situation they are in (last of the elves on the continent) that interests them.

So, if Bob has a belief, the King of Men is a dolt who does not deserve to have his throne in our now dead queen's Shining Citadel and I will show him the error of his hubris with my arrows...bam, the game is going to be about that conflict between the King and you.

If Bret has a belief, Orcs should have been purged from the continent before the last elf leaves and I myself will kill hunt their greatest leader through the mountains, you damn well better know there will be some orc hunting.

They are roommates, so I know that they will create their beliefs together and with some direction, these Beliefs will feed into one another.

These Beliefs aren't about what the character cares about...who cares what a fictional dingus cares about?  These Beliefs are about what turns the player on.

And they get rewarded with Artha for chasing down their Beliefs and acting on them.

Other links to look at:

Deep in the Game: Flag Framing

Creating the Scenario with the Character Sheets in Front of Me

[Anders Larsen]

A reward system can also be used to motivate the player to engage into a desired feeling or mood.

The question is: In a Lendrhald game, what is it that enforces the dark fantasy feeling? From what I can see from the description of your players, it must be you, as the GM, that 'forces' the dark feeling into the game, for the player don't seem to be the kind that naturally goes there (I may be totally wrong here, but I hope you will see my point anyway).

Now think about if you had a mechanic that in a fair way motivated the players to engage in the 'dark fantasy' feeling by rewarding them for enhance the horror and making thing more scary for their characters.

Something have to force the dark feeling into the game. The question is: should it be the GM or should it be the system?

- Anders

[David Berg]

It seems to be the case that a lot of responsibilities that I have always figured to be the duty of a good GM are unofficial in the games I have played, but more official (or at least officially encouraged) in some other systems.  To the extent that these duties are assisted by helpful hints in some games, I say "Great!"  I like helpful hints.  Any published form of Lendrhald will certainly have helpful hints on solving physical problems, creating character backstory, and any number of methods to maintain realism.  (In A's game, he made all enemy dice rolls behind the screen, and refused to have even the most trivial "character 1 is here but 2 is not" discussions in front of character 2's player.  I don't know if you'll believe me, but I actually found it more effective than annoying!)

What I'm wondering is, when is it a good idea to turn helpful hints into system mechanics?

You say, "To the extent that direct-to-player mechanical rewards support doing what makes sense in-game, they seem borderline superfluous". They are not superfluous, and here's why: they indicate to everyone playing the game that the objective is to do what makes sense in-game. Without that reward, a new player to the game might misunderstand what the point of the game is. But with that reward, it's really clear: the player is rewarded for ensuring that the game world always makes sense.

A helpful hint might be effective too, but I see your point: the majority of the time, a reward system will be more effective.  It's quick to read, easy to remember, simple to understand, and motivation in itself, all benefits over, say, 40 pages of setting material.  But I think I see trade-offs that outweigh these benefits:

In Lendrhald's case, the entire setting and current resolution mechanics are designed to ensure that failing to do what makes sense in-game will get you killed.  And it's worked so far, in terms of pretty much any issue that could get you killed.  Sometimes players have done things that didn't make sense in social situations in-game, but those were issues of lack of knowledge about the setting (I blame myself for not making them read more orientation material), not issues of being disinclined to do what made sense.

The unofficial system in place is: "If you do something that doesn't make sense, the GM will inform you that those actions would appear stupid or psychotic in the gameworld, so you might want to take them back and try again in such and such fashion."  I could institute an official system of Stigma points and Marked For Death points, and give players Rewind points that they could use to remove a certain number of Stigmatized or Death-Marked moments... it would encourage players to read up on my world more... but it would also encourage meta-gamey thinking and be more jarring to the course of play than my current method...

If you're doing it for points (my Caution and Credibility went up!) rather than in-game rewards (you don't wind up lost in the woods, you don't get looked at like a moron by the guy you're pumping for info), then your head's not in the right place...  I don't want to encourage that kind of dissociation from the gameworld, and having points out there to be gained risks doing exactly that.

Does that make sense or do I just sound paranoid?

Joe is tired from a long day at the office (and doesn't feel like solving the riddle), and Bob is getting on his nerves for whatever reason (so Joe doesn't feel like impressing Bob). That last support, the mechanical one (+1 to Puzzle), is still there to encourage Joe to play the game. It is certainly possible that this might not be enough, but at least it's there, so it might have some benefit for Joe. Without it, though, Joe has no encouragement to play the game, because the other two rewards are supplied by Joe, not the game system.

That is an excellent summary of an important dynamic.  My game is fairly demanding on players, as they are free to pursue what interests them, with no GM coercion, and sometimes they don't really get enthused about doing whatever they'd previously decided to do, nor about picking a new course.  On those occasions, they might rather play a board game... but does that mean that I should turn my RPG into one?  If they're not interested in the in-game concerns, I'm not sure I want to lead them along with mechanical bribes...

I hope my purism doesn't leave me with an audience of one... but it hasn't thus far...

These Beliefs aren't about what the character cares about...who cares what a fictional dingus cares about? These Beliefs are about what turns the player on.

This set-up sounds like a fantastic form of a helpful hint.  I'm lovin' it.  But then you say:

And they get rewarded with Artha for chasing down their Beliefs and acting on them.

Huh?  What's Artha?  Does its existence and the pursuit of it really improve the game beyond the contributions of simply generating Beliefs?  (I know, I'm being impatient... I really will play Burning Wheel one of these days and find out first-hand...)

[David Berg]

Something have to force the dark feeling into the game. The question is: should it be the GM or should it be the system?

My answer would be that this job belongs to the setting.  But perhaps that isn't realistic.  Not every part of the world is dark, so in theory the players could choose to hang around in town and make friends, drink beer, chase women, trade goods, etc. 

If they did this, I would probably try to appeal to their curiosity by saying, "Some guy runs by screaming.  You see that his face looks melted, dripping unnaturally.  You've never seen anything like it."  The setting says that things like that can happen in the world.  The GM decides that it happens where the players can see it.  Perhaps a random table of setting-appropriate curiosity-arousing incidents could be included within the rules, to help out uninspired GMs.

I am having trouble thinking of how a player rewards system would produce better results.  If the world and the GM fail to arouse players' curiosity, I don't think saying, "Your Curiosity Seeker trait means you'll earn points if you check it out!" is a desirable solution.  All you wind up with is players interested in points pretending to be interested in what's going on in-game.

[David Berg]

Judd, thanks for those links.  Those are some of the best helpful hints I've seen.  I think I'll try Chris's NPC - PC sheet idea.

By the way, is there already some Forge term that means "game elements designed to facilitate and improve play without incorporating mechanical rewards/punishments", or should I just keep saying "helpful hints"?

[Ricky Donato]

Warning: I use some Forge terminology ahead. But I'm new here, so I'm not entirely clear on things. If anyone sees any errors ahead, please let me know.

By the way, is there already some Forge term that means "game elements designed to facilitate and improve play without incorporating mechanical rewards/punishments", or should I just keep saying "helpful hints"?

This might sound strange, but a helpful hint is a mechanic. It's not a mechanic with numbers attached, but it's still a mechanic. Compare these samples of rules text:

1) "Each player states his character's action in initiative order."
2) "All characters must be human."
3) "Each player should state his character's action in initiative order, to avoid confusion."
4) "All characters should be human, to intensify the weirdness when meeting an Evil Threat."

#3 & 4 are probably what you're thinking of when you say "helpful hint" (if not, please let me know), but note that they are really no different from #1 & 2. All of them state how the players interact with the game world - and that's a mechanic. A group can decide to ignore #1 & 2 just as easily as they can decide to ignore #3 & 4. None of these 4 mechanics have numbers attached, which is probably what you think of when you say "mechanic", but that doesn't keep them from being mechanics.

(I think this is part of the Forge term "The Lumpley principle", which states that the system is everything that the group uses to agree to imagined events while playing. This includes not just the numbers but also flavor text in the rule book, explicit or implicit agreements between the players that were never in the rules to begin with, and so on.)

A helpful hint might be effective too, but I see your point: the majority of the time, a reward system will be more effective.  It's quick to read, easy to remember, simple to understand, and motivation in itself, all benefits over, say, 40 pages of setting material.  But I think I see trade-offs that outweigh these benefits:

In Lendrhald's case, the entire setting and current resolution mechanics are designed to ensure that failing to do what makes sense in-game will get you killed.  And it's worked so far, in terms of pretty much any issue that could get you killed.

Actually, what you just described is a reward system - again, it just doesn't have numbers attached. It goes like this: "You have a character. That character is how you interact with the game world. If this character dies, that's bad, because you can't interact with the game world any more. If you take the following game actions, you are rewarded by keeping your character alive."

Not only that, but this reward of "not getting killed" can be a very effective one - but it can't be the only one. If the system only rewards those actions that keep your character alive, then the best thing for a player to do is keep his character at home, safe and sound, which will probably be boring.

I could institute an official system of Stigma points and Marked For Death points, and give players Rewind points that they could use to remove a certain number of Stigmatized or Death-Marked moments... it would encourage players to read up on my world more... but it would also encourage meta-gamey thinking and be more jarring to the course of play than my current method...

If you're doing it for points (my Caution and Credibility went up!) rather than in-game rewards (you don't wind up lost in the woods, you don't get looked at like a moron by the guy you're pumping for info), then your head's not in the right place...  I don't want to encourage that kind of dissociation from the gameworld, and having points out there to be gained risks doing exactly that.

Does that make sense or do I just sound paranoid?

I understand what you're afraid of. You want to extend the sense of immersion, the feeling that you are really there experiencing what all these imaginary characters in imaginary situations are experiencing. And you're afraid that incorporating any form of metagame mechanics is like hitting a speed bump - you feel this lurch as you are pulled out of that dream-experience to handle the metagame mechanic.

The next bit is my personal opinion, not collected Forge wisdom. I really hope someone more knowledgable comes around and explains the collected Forge wisdom on this topic, if any.

I feel that metagame mechanics are perfectly acceptable and minimally impact the immersive experience when done right. Metagame mechanics that reward the immersive experience can be very beneficial and really get everyone on board as to the goal. ("You described that tavern really well. You get 2 Credibility points." "Cool!")

In addition, as I mentioned above, mechanics don't have to involve numbers - a checklist of things to do when describing a scene could also work well, for example. ("According to the rules, when describing a new character, I should first describe their physical appearance, then their general demeanor. So Diana the barmaid is a young woman, wearing a tight white tunic that accentuates her bodice. She smiles cheerfully, as her job requires, but there is a bit of sadness in her eyes."  Note that after a bit of practice, the first sentence becomes unnecessary because the players learn the rules.)

Finally, I feel that without them, you must rely entirely on the players and GM to supply that dream-experience - which is perfectly fine in and of itself, but if anyone is not on board, there is absolutely no way to get him on board.

If you want to rely exclusively on the players themselves, then that can certainly work - but it is now dependent exclusively on the players, and you as a game designer have no control over it.

What are your thoughts on all this?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Let me just raise a little yellow flag for everybody before Ron Edwards does:

1) This discussion is really general, and therefore it's hard to communicate clearly -- it's turning into what "RPG Theory" was before that forum got shut down for running in circles as people talked past each other.

2) David has another thread -- http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113.0 -- running concurrently on this same question in the specific context of his game, where people are discussing specific suggestions.

Besides the general principle that it's confusing to have two threads taking different approaches to the same topic at the same time, I think it's a lot easier to communicate the general principles in specific proposed mechanics ("mechanics" including, as Ricky said, pretty much any kind of procedure suggested in the rules, not just stuff involving numbers and dice).

I'd respectfully recommend that we all port this discussion over there and frame it in more specific terms, which I think would be more helpful to David. David, obviously, if you think the double-barrelled approach is helpful, stick with it, but I'd also note that as the guy who initiated this thread, you have full authority to say, "okay, done here now, thanks" whenever you want.