Player Induced Rewards

[Tim C Koppang]

After reading a couple of posts, I was thinking about a mechanic that would allow players to divvy out rewards themselves instead of giving the GM all of the control.  I don’t mean XP, but rather the “fate chips” sort of reward.  In a game like “Deadlands” or “7th Sea” the GM will toss a player an extra drama die or fate chip if he believes that player has earned one through good role-playing.  However why not turn this over to the other players in the group?

Maybe each player has a pool of points that he couldn’t spend on his own character, but could award to others when he believed they deserved them.  The points could be used to boost a skill check or in some other way alter the primary game mechanic used in the system.  So in effect a player would have two pools: one to spend on his character and another to spend on other players.

I’m trying to come up with an entire mechanic based on this concept actually, but I can’t figure out how to encourage players to spend their points willingly.  Also, how would the “other players pool” refresh in order to make extended play plausible?  What about abuse - singling out certain players or teaming up on the GM?

[James V. West]

I've heard of systems that have a kind of "voting" method for doing something like this.

In my recent designs, I've been using this idea to a degree. In The Pool, players can give dice to other players at certain times, such as when they successfully gamble extra dice on a roll.

The one thing that keeps bugging me is the notion of players feeling singled-out or ignored. I wouldn't want to encourage that kind of behavior. I have a system in which a lot of voting takes place, but I don't like the idea that people know who voted what. I like it to be secret so that no feelings can get hurt, and people will vote how they really feel.

This is an idea that deserves exploration. Any player empowerment tactic is worth serious thought, in my opinion.

James V.

[Tim C Koppang]

The one thing that keeps bugging me is the notion of players feeling singled-out or ignored. I wouldn't want to encourage that kind of behavior. I have a system in which a lot of voting takes place, but I don't like the idea that people know who voted what. I like it to be secret so that no feelings can get hurt, and people will vote how they really feel.

This is an idea that deserves exploration. Any player empowerment tactic is worth serious thought, in my opinion.

I envision a game where players all happily sit around and pass chips around, working together.  Thus they encourage creativity and work to keep others involved…

Maybe that’s how you could curb players from singling out others - somehow make their own rewards depend on how much they keep others involved.  If they themselves could only receive so many chips until they begin to give rewards out it may help.  But still there would have to be a way to make sure the singled out player actually got chips.  If one group kept all the chips within their own circle they could circumvent this rule and keep the people they don’t like on the outside.  Maybe the GM could play a part as well, or is their another way of designing this mechanic?

My other thoughts lead me to believe that some players, as you put it, just don’t deserve rewards all of the time, especially when they just sit in a corner and say, “I kill it.”  But of course that’s one of the points of player induced rewards - to encourage players to participate.  If their ability to act effectively in-game depends on it, then they should theoretically step up to the challenge of good gaming.  Obviously the mechanic isn’t for everyone.

Thoughts?  A bit of help please?

_________________
- Tim C K

[ This Message was edited by: fleetingGlow on 2001-07-22 11:26 ]

[Le Joueur]

Allow me to describe what we are considering in Scattershot (the game we are currently putting together).

fleetingGlow wrote:

James V. West wrote:
The one thing that keeps bugging me is the notion of players feeling singled-out or ignored. I wouldn't want to encourage that kind of behavior. I have a system in which a lot of voting takes place, but I don't like the idea that people know who voted what. I like it to be secret so that no feelings can get hurt, and people will vote how they really feel.

This is an idea that deserves exploration. Any player empowerment tactic is worth serious thought, in my opinion.

I envision a game where players all happily sit around and pass chips around, working together.  Thus they encourage creativity and work to keep others involved...

We have actually been playtesting a variant on our ‘instant rewards’ system for this.  It breaks down to having a bowl of rewards tokens on the table between the players.  When someone does something that works entertainingly towards the group’s playing goals (this depends on their tastes, not mine as the designer), any player is encouraged to grab one of these and toss it their way.  If the gamemaster concurs they send the player making the reward a similar one from the gamemaster stock.

Maybe that’s how you could curb players from singling out others - somehow make their own rewards depend on how much they keep others involved.

I am not inclined to agree.  I have, in my playtesting group, one very reserved member.  He always tends to stand in the background and only act when needed, either by the situation or the demands of the story.  His ‘internal game’ is a complex, thought-provoking internal monologue that everyone loves to hear about later, but during play, he effectively has ‘little involvement.’  In fact, he is personally uncomfortable ‘thrust into the spotlight.’

As opposed to most expectations, he is also the most attentive of player.  Likewise, as one of my most thoughtful players, he creates characters who work best in the ‘guarded’ or background roles.  Lest one confuses him with something on the order of a sub-gamemaster or a player-non-player character, he is just as involved in the context of the game as any of the players.

I have always benefited from having him as both a player and as a playtester, because he represents a classic case many ‘get everyone playing’ mechanics would not work for.  When it comes to rewards, this player frequently gets them for the rare actions he takes and also for ‘moving the game along’ and ‘enriching the experience of everyone playing.’  I have never seen him have problems keeping up reward-wise with any of the ‘spotlight hogs.’

My other thoughts lead me to believe that some players, as you put it, just don’t deserve rewards all of the time, especially when they just sit in a corner and say, "I kill it."

This is something we discuss explicitly in the rewards section of our game, how to determine what deserves rewards in the reader’s playing style.  Its kind of like a mini-‘how to write your own rewards schedule’ section.

Thoughts?  A bit of help please?

Actually Scattershot uses an unusual rewards mechanic.  Instead of points or chips or tokens, we give out six-siders.  These dice can (and usually do) get used to prejudice other die rolls (there are no limits to which).  They can also be saved and used to improve the player’s character between sessions.  (This was created to also give a little thrill when attempting improvement; you dice for character points.  With one dice you have only a small chance of getting any points; the more dice you throw, the more likely it is to get more points--the thresholds remain the same no matter how many dice thrown.)

Because Scattershot works with a ‘degree of success’ mechanic, a player may also use these rewards dice to make alterations to the plot a la plot device, simply roll one and it determines the degree of effect of the plot device.  Entertaining use as plot device almost guarantees further instant rewards.

The ‘instant reward for use’ mechanic keeps using them from starving the improvement cycle, meaning characters in a ‘dramatic’ story are as likely to improve as ‘undramatic’ ones.  In fact entertaining (or dramatically satisfying) play is also likely to garner additional rewards.  (Of course, all of this is still working its way through playtest even now.)

I am still trying to find mechanics that are similar, but I have found the ‘affecting functional play’ versus being useless in ‘moderating dysfunctional play’ thread highly enlightening.

Fang Langford

[Tim C Koppang]

I am not inclined to agree.  I have, in my playtesting group, one very reserved member.  He always tends to stand in the background and only act when needed, either by the situation or the demands of the story.  His ‘internal game’ is a complex, thought-provoking internal monologue that everyone loves to hear about later, but during play, he effectively has ‘little involvement.’  In fact, he is personally uncomfortable ‘thrust into the spotlight.’

As opposed to most expectations, he is also the most attentive of player.  Likewise, as one of my most thoughtful players, he creates characters who work best in the ‘guarded’ or background roles.  Lest one confuses him with something on the order of a sub-gamemaster or a player-non-player character, he is just as involved in the context of the game as any of the players.

I have always benefited from having him as both a player and as a playtester, because he represents a classic case many ‘get everyone playing’ mechanics would not work for.  When it comes to rewards, this player frequently gets them for the rare actions he takes and also for ‘moving the game along’ and ‘enriching the experience of everyone playing.’  I have never seen him have problems keeping up reward-wise with any of the ‘spotlight hogs.’

Now that I think about it, I also have a player who acts in much the same way you describe.  Ask him about the story, and he can tell you every detail, but he sits quietly throughout the game.  From my point of view it's too bad we can't reward him in-game for his role-playing, but at the same time I have a hard time with this sort of player.  I want to see everyone contributing as much as possible.  On the other hand, I need to broaden my horizons a bit I think.

I'm frustrated: I want awards to be handed out in-game, but don't know how to handle the silent ones.  Now I'll feel guilty for leaving someone out.

Because Scattershot works with a ‘degree of success’ mechanic, a player may also use these rewards dice to make alterations to the plot a la plot device, simply roll one and it determines the degree of effect of the plot device.  Entertaining use as plot device almost guarantees further instant rewards.

This I like, very narrativist if I may use the term.  I like the degree of success element.  In fact I enjoyed the whole d6 reward idea.  It opens up a lot of room for games that don't want the characters abilities to improve greatly, but still want to keep a reward mechanic of some sort.  Improvement can be directed in a certain direction that doesn't have to follow the traditional, "my character gains an extra skill level."

The ‘instant reward for use’ mechanic keeps using them from starving the improvement cycle, meaning characters in a ‘dramatic’ story are as likely to improve as ‘undramatic’ ones.  In fact entertaining (or dramatically satisfying) play is also likely to garner additional rewards.  (Of course, all of this is still working its way through playtest even now.)

But how do the undramatic players actually gain points?  If they need to spend to recieve, how does their net value rise?  Obviously this isn't a stand alone mechanic?

Now to read some more on player stances...

[Le Joueur]

fleetingGlow wrote:

Fang Langford wrote:
I have, in my playtesting group, one very reserved member.  He always tends to stand in the background and only act when needed, either by the situation or the demands of the story.  His ‘internal game’ is a complex, thought-provoking internal monologue that everyone loves to hear about later, but during play, he effectively has ‘little involvement.’  In fact, he is personally uncomfortable ‘thrust into the spotlight.’

As opposed to most expectations, he is also the one of most attentive of players.  Likewise, as one of my most thoughtful players, he creates characters who work best in these ‘guarded’ or background roles.  Lest one confuses him with something on the order of a sub-gamemaster or a player-non-player character, he is just as involved in the context of the game as any of the players.

I have always benefited from having him as both a player and as a playtester, because he represents a classic case where many ‘get everyone playing’ mechanics would not work.  When it comes to rewards, this player frequently gets them for the rare actions he takes and also for ‘moving the game along’ and ‘enriching the experience of everyone playing.’  I have never seen him have problems keeping up reward-wise with any of the ‘spotlight hogs.’

Now that I think about it, I also have a player who acts in much the same way you describe.  Ask him about the story, and he can tell you every detail, but he sits quietly throughout the game.  From my point of view it's too bad we can't reward him in-game for his role-playing, but at the same time I have a hard time with this sort of player.  I want to see everyone contributing as much as possible.  On the other hand, I need to broaden my horizons a bit I think.

I, too, had to learn to appreciate the things he did contribute.  It was a matter of learning what the nonverbal parts of gaming are.  It was quite an education.  Because of his thoughtful actions, unknown to most of the players, I generally grant him additional aspects of character that either prompts him to the ‘saving their butts’ role or by their existence affect the narrative (like a juicy reputation) even without his action.  I also usually grant his character additional knowledge about the background, allowing him the sage role when he does speak.  I always make sure he is ‘on board’ for these ideas, and often his character designs already offer these ideas.

I'm frustrated: I want awards to be handed out in-game, but don't know how to handle the silent ones.  Now I'll feel guilty for leaving someone out.

It really comes down to a matter of acknowledging nonverbal role-playing.  I’m lucky, as our ‘silent partner’ is also a prolific character artist, he frequently provides visual aids not only for his and the other player characters, but also the significant non-playing characters.  I also make careful note of how his presence in a scene adds to it and what he does do; frequently my players can be confused when I give an instant reward for him apparently not doing anything, when actually he is withholding action on some information I know he knows (especially when it suits his character’s interest at the expense of the players’).

Because Scattershot works with a ‘degree of success’ mechanic, a player may also use these rewards dice to make alterations to the plot a la plot device, by simply rolling one and it determines the degree of effect of the plot device.  Entertaining use as plot device almost guarantees further instant rewards.

This I like, very narrativist if I may use the term.

Actually, by applying a system than can also be used within the rest of the mechanics, it has been prone to bring gamist goals in line with narrativist ones (if I am using the terms correctly).

I like the degree of success element.  In fact I enjoyed the whole d6 reward idea.

At first it seemed kind of strange in a ‘rating minus 2d10’ system, but the ‘tangible rewards’ effect more than outweighed that.

It opens up a lot of room for games that don't want the characters abilities to improve greatly, but still want to keep a reward mechanic of some sort.

That was one of the things we liked best about it.  It really promotes localized style preferences.  (The text we include discusses how to arrive at those for each group.)

Improvement can be directed in a certain direction that doesn't have to follow the traditional, "my character gains an extra skill level."

Actually, we take that a step farther.  Scattershot has a technique for niche protection, minor detail management, and character evolution call the Sine Qua Non character description technique.  With it, a player explicitly chooses and discloses the things that ‘define’ their character, the things that the character would be someone else without.  Using it, the other participants in the game have a rough idea how they can expect a character to grow or change and where they stand in relation to that character.

It is flexible too; changing to suit changes a player makes in his priorities for the character while also creating a roadmap or reminder for how to handle any advancement.  If I understand correctly, it can be a gamist tool (staking out the territory desired), a simulationist tool (putting the gamemaster on notice for what will be required of the ‘world’), or even a narrative tool (when talking about how the character will add to the ‘story’).  What it isn’t is mechanical; it is simply a formalized character description technique.  This allows it to tailor itself to the desires and styles of various gaming groups.

The ‘instant reward for use’ mechanic keeps using these experience dice from starving the improvement cycle, meaning characters in a ‘dramatic’ story are as likely to improve as ‘undramatic’ ones.  In fact entertaining (or dramatically satisfying) play is also likely to garner additional rewards.  (Of course, all of this is still working its way through playtest even now.)

But how do the undramatic players actually gain points?  If they need to spend to receive, how does their net value rise?  Obviously this isn't a stand alone mechanic?

‘Undramatic’ players receive experience dice the ‘old fashioned way,’ by exceeding at the expectations of the style in play.  The ‘instant reward for use’ mechanic is to balance out the times when a player uses an experience dice doing exactly this.  Both kinds of instant rewards reflect good play, but we added specific verbiage for rewarding the use of experience dice in this way because we noted a clear lack of that during playtest.  (It seemed like the playtesters felt that using the dice ‘went outside’ of the style they were employing, so the never rewarded it.  I felt that many styles could benefit from the use of the dice in play so I wrote it up explicitly.)

Thank you for requesting clarification, it shows I still need to work on my presentation of our game system; this is very good practice for me.

Fang Langford