Reward vs. Punishment....

[deadpanbob]

All:

Okay, here's a question I have:

It seems much better to me for a game to reward players for play behavior appropriate to the game than to punish them for behavior inappropriate to the game.

However, I find that it's easier for me to identify inappropriate behavior in an objective way for my game.

Specifically, I'm talking about how the player narrates their action.  Using the tried and true combat examples, I want the players to NOT say "I swing my sword" or "I hit him with my axe".  Instead, I want to encourage them to be a lot more detailed and descriptive: "I jump over the orc's massive swing, pulling my legs up and turning the leap into a tumble to my right, trying to thrust under his backswing as I uncoil and plant my feet back under me..."

The problem I'm having is that evaluating a narration for a positive reward is difficult and always subjective.  In the context of a gamist (all shorthand filters applying) game, I would like to remove as much subjectivity as possible, and am left thinking the best way to do this would be to say that players are penalized for one sentance/simple sentance narration of their characters actions.

In this case, the penalty is the loss of a a meta-game resource, the old tried and true hero point/fate point/luck point/whathave you.

So, my question is this: In the context of a gamist (applying all due shorthand caveats) game, is it okay to use penalties for bad behavior instead of rewards for good behavior, or will this just serve to turn any potential players off to the game as too harsh?

On a related note, are there any games out there that utilize a penalty mechanic that's applied/judged by the other players rather than by the GM?

FYI - I did a search on rewards and rewarding player behavior and didn't get anything exactly on point.  I may have missed it, or as usual, my search-fu sucks...

Cheers,



Jason

[Mike Holmes]

The problem I'm having is that evaluating a narration for a positive reward is difficult and always subjective.

How is choosing to punish any less subjective? I mean, if the system is rate how bad from one to three, and subtract that many dice, how is that different from, rate how good from one to three, and add that many dice.

If you want to take the subjectivity out, then reward only at one level. Then you're just making a general statement about trying to do the right thing. Which is all you generally need. So, in this case, as long as the player says something better than "I hit it", they get a one die bonus. If it's iffy, hold it out in front of you until they add, "I hit it really hard" or whatever you require. After a couple of times you won't have to worry because they'll be making grand declarations, and asking you for the die. You'd be surprised at how well that works.

Mike

[deadpanbob]

Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.  Clearly, my unequivicoally underwhelming powers of communication have failed me again.

To be more specific - the game in question is gamist - and includes the players competeing with/against the GM to some degree - so it needs to be a reward/punishment that's can be doled out by anyone at the table (any of the players).

I'm all down for bonus dice in the Sorcerer sense for 'good roleplaying description' being a driver that teaches good behavoir.

It's just that when the players are in competition, especially if the GM is involved in that competition, I'm having trouble seeing the positive reward mechanic not devolving down into arguments.

Okay, wait a second, I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel - and d'oh!  You're saying that the objective criteria could still be: "descriptions of actions that are not just simple sentences get a reward of 1 x" whatever x is.  Put that in the rules, and allow all the players to grant that reward, and that would be enough.

I think I can see it - but given that 1 of X might give a player an advantage, and it's a gamist game, won't that tend to foster stinginess in terms of giving the reward, and won't that lead to more and more lapsing into the proscribed behavior?

Well, who knows.  I'm probably over analyzing as usual.

Cheers,


Jason

[Bob McNamee]

Alternately,

Since the binary 1x bonus is practically a freebie for "Good descriptions" or whatever, it would be foolish for a gamist to pass up an easy advantage by giving the "I swing" description.

 Just make sure that the binary bonus types reward the type of play you want to see... if everyone just does whats expected and gets a couple of freebie bonuses every contest, well...then play is going the way you intended.

edited in:  Local Social Contract will probably handle the issues of too much / not enough giving out... I can't see being really stingy with giving them out if other Players can nominate it, since they will want to be given the same consideration for their actions.

You could also tie giving one type of bonus out to the activating of a bonus to the GM for some other type of behavior.

[Sparky]

When Mike said;
" So, in this case, as long as the player says something better than "I hit it", they get a one die bonus. If it's iffy, hold it out in front of you until they add, "I hit it really hard" or whatever you require. After a couple of times you won't have to worry because they'll be making grand declarations, and asking you for the die. You'd be surprised at how well that works."

I asked myself why not just have them roll another (different colored) die along with their regular dice and only count it against the diff if they add the description you're looking for?

Like Mike said, the players should catch on quick. But having that extra die in their hand may act as a reminder to them.

Chris

[Silmenume]

Hello.

This is my first posting on these boards.  Before I start in earnest on the thread topic I just want to say to the webmasters and all the posters what a delight it is to have found such a reasoned group of individuals who are so dedicated to advancing and improving the past time of roleplaying games.  The deep considerations and the lack of acrimoniousness on these boards if both enlightening and refreshing.  Thank you one and all!

I will now return you to the topic at hand.

Unless I am mistaken there are two distinct parts to your post.  How to be as objective as possible or conversely how to minimize subjectivity in regard to certain actions taken in your game as well as how to modify player behavior.

On the topic of objectivity or subjectivity I would say thus, one can never be entirely objective.  It is impossible for all the way down to the quantum level of experience the observer affects the observed.  One can never know how something truly is because in the act of acquiring intelligence on the subject of interest the subject is altered.  There is an interaction that cannot be avoided.  This interference exists at all level from the quantum to the macro world.  While this may seem a bit obtuse I believe it is important to bring up.

Why?  While I agree it is important to try to be objective while GMing, to make logical rulings without distortion due to personal bias or other shortcomings, I do not believe it is possible to be absolutely so.  Thus I do not think it productive to try and create a system that is absolutely objective in form and function.  The mere act of observing your players, the intaking of their information that they are supplying to you, your personal relationships with your players, your current mood, how much sleep you had the night before etc., are all going to color your perceptions to a greater or lesser degree.  While these may be the very elements whose effects you are trying to eliminate I believe you can not banish them entirely.  

Ok.  So what?  I suppose in theory one could legislate a truly objective system, but since we human beings are subjective beings; such a system will never work as intended.  There will always be some level of interpretation involved.  Since some level of distortion is always going to be in there I propose that you do not worry overly much about it, and on a certain level embrace it.  The DM is always going to have to interpret what is going on at the table and make judgment calls.  That being the case I think what is then is to be strived for is the highest level of consistency of judgment as possible within the bounds of the social contract.

This can be facilitated in the gamist sense, (please don't vilify me if I am mistaken in the use of my vocabulary.  I have only recent read the articles on GNS, and am still trying to digest all that they contained.  I mean no disrespect to any style of play or by extension to any poster.), by the creation of very detailed rules to try and cover as many anticipated situations as possible.  However as I had indicated before it is impossible to predict every possible incidence whereby some sort of ruling might have to be made.  OR one could embrace the idea that all possible events cannot be foreseeable; therefore it will happen that judgment calls will have to be made without a prior rules set.

This means that the players have to trust in the DM to make such calls.  How this handled varies from individual game to individual game, however it is an integral part of the social contract.  There is no question the position of DM is different from that of player.  He has a different agenda and he does have different roles and responsibilities to his players.  Just what those roles are and how they are to be filled is, I think, much of what this sight attempts to discuss.  

So what am I trying to get at finally?  Do the best that you are able, legislate what you can, make judgment calls on what you can't, and don't kill yourself attempting to utterly exterminate what is impossible to eliminate.  We have long been subject to gravity; its effects are consistent enough that we can create abstractions of its effects (mathematical equations, theories and such) that are accurate enough that we may project into the future how objects will be subject to its effects.  However, long before we consciously created these "rules" the described the effects of gravity, we were still subject to them and could use them to advantage, i.e., armies tended toward the high ground, the besieged took advantage of the wall of castles to accelerate through the use of gravity, heavy objects towards their besiegers by dropping rocks on their heads.  The same principle can be used in your game as well, and by that I mean, just because a rule does not exist a priori to describe a resolution process for an event does not mean you are forbidden from making a judgment call and making your own resolution mechanic on the fly.  Let your GNS choice along with your specific game system and your social contract guide you in the judgments you do have to make.  Create rules where it is prudent to do so and in conjunction with your circumstances, just be wary of the goals you set for yourself in the process.


On the topic of how to modify player behavior I have a couple of thoughts.  They are merely that, ideas that hopefully with spark some ideas in your mind and are not meant to be proscriptions.  Let it also be noted that I play in a game that is primarily simulationist so if I make some assumptions that are not in line with the solution that you are seeking I apologize a forehand.

I am a little uncertain on how to proceed for in the example you had given, the player example was clearly a director's stance.  Unless the description was a recounting of events after a series of combat maneuvers by you and the player with the die rolls already having been accounted for, the play in the example is making assumptions about or directing the actions of his foe.  If that example is a true sample of the style of play that you are looking for then the matter of latitude by which you allow your players to dictate the world must be included for that very latitude becomes a central issue.

For the sake of simplicity I will attempt to limit my discussion to a combat frame work whereby the game play is either actor or author stance because the character is more tightly bound to what is going on in the game world and thus the players' options become a little more proscribed.  In other words the player can't just side step some DM created event just because he says so, i.e, the player says the orc fumbles, falls on his own sword and perishes.

Given the limitations I have indicated, and if they are relevant to your situation, the easiest method I see to encourage the players to be more descriptive in the case you employed, combat, is to make their action descriptions relevant.  In other words, add a tactical element to your combat, let these tactic have concrete effects on their die rolls (assuming you are using a fortune system that allows for some sort of modifications) and the players should start using those tactics which results in more descriptive play.

Let us say that flanking, attack type, defensive actions, and a higher resolution hit point system were in effect.  By higher resolution hit point system I mean something that has more detail to it than the hit point blob of say 2e D&D, so that specific blows can effect specific body areas.  Whether or not it would be easy to do such things, such as aiming a blow to strike at a head is not terribly important other than that the success of such a blow have a tangible and consistent effect on the foe.  Whew!

Now to use the example you gave I will fictionalize a possible give and take while discussing how these tactical options could encourage more descriptive play –

"I jump over the orc's massive swing, pulling my legs up and turning the leap into a tumble to my right, trying to thrust under his backswing as I uncoil and plant my feet back under me..."

DM – The orc pulls back his massive sword that gleams darkly, and then suddenly lunges forward swinging a powerful two-handed blow for your legs.

(The DM is effectively using an attack type that could be categorized as a smote.  For this example we will describe if as a full body commitment to an attack that could grant a possible +2 to hit and 1 ½ x damage should it strike true.  Also the DM is role-playing the orc making a called shot to the player's legs.  The reason could be, using the higher resolution AC and hit point system, that he PC is only wearing a jerkin of mail thus leaving the legs more vulnerable to attack.  The down side to this direct blow is that it is harder to hit a specific target than it is to hit a person period.

PC – I pull my legs up and turn the leap into a tumble to my right.

(The player is attempting an avoid which could also be called a dodge.  However the description is such that it could be easily interpreted that the player was attempting a full avoid, if such discriminations were allowed.  The advantage to the player for a "full avoid" might be a +8 to not being hit, but losing some offense capability for the next few moments.  The player also described the direction of his movement because where he ends up relative to his foe is important as well as flanking has tactical advantages, i.e., the direction you attack your foe from afford bonuses to hit and possibly damage.  One is more likely to hit a foe when striking from his 6 than he is from in front.)

*Using whatever fate resolution system that is in play we assume for this example the player succeeds.*

DM – The orc is caught off guard by your swift and unexpected but reacts lightning fast and before you are out of your tumble he flashes a wild backswing to put steel between you and him.

(The DM decides that the orc is skillful but not a master.  The orc is role-played to be caught off guard by the players move, but he is not left entirely flat-footed.  Being vulnerable to a flank attack the DM decides that the orc attempts a harrying attack.  He can assume for example that the orc is cocky (he has some skill, but is no sword master or master tactician or he might just see how vulnerable his position currently is), and rather that stepping out of range of the PC so that he can reset his facing, and rather than just parrying an anticipated blow, the orc stays on the offense and chooses a weak or feeble attack.  Because the attack is weak the DM may decide that he will take a –4 penalty to the attack and deliver ½ damage should the orc strike true.)

PC – As I finish my roll I stay low to the ground

(By staying low to the ground the PC presents a smaller target to his foe and thus affords some increase in his defensive value.  Perhaps a –2 modifier is assigned to the orcs attack in addition to the other modifiers.)

*Using whatever fate resolution system that is in play we assume for this example the DM fails.*

DM – The sword goes high, but he starts to turn toward you again...

(The DM puts some pressure on the player to act because he having the orc start to turn his facing the player's flanking advantage starts to disappear.)

Player – I drive forward hard under the orc's swing and thrust my sword under his arm with all of my body weight behind it.

(The player seeing opportunity slipping from his fingers as his flanking advantage start to go away decides that he will gamble and put everything he has into this next attack to put the orc down.  "I drive forward," suggests that the player is moving quickly.  This is important for two reasons.  First the player is putting an emphasis on speed hoping to launch his attack before he loses his attack bonuses.  Second as the player also said "...with all of my body weight behind it" paints a picture of an attack (both descriptively and tactically) that might be called a full thrust attack with certain advantages and disadvantages are involved.  In this case a bonus to hit might be given as well as a damage modifier as this attack, if it strikes true, will not only have the strength of the PC involved but the body mass as well.  The disadvantage might be that the PC because he committed himself so fully to the attack would not be able to defend against an attack as effectively, so for a brief while the PC might be +2 easier to be hit until he resets.  The player describing where he hopes to strike suggests a "called shot", much like the orc made a "called shot" earlier in the combat.  Not only does it add color but once again there are tactical reasons for doing it as well.  The orc may not have armor under his arm, or the DM may decide if the player does hit and does well on his damage rolls, that they player could drive his sword through the orc's heart killing it in one blow.)

I hope that I haven't over stepped any bounds in this post.  I see that I have written much, too much perhaps.  I hope that I have provided you with some food for thought.

Best wishes.

[deadpanbob]

Silmenume, Sparky and Bob:

Thanks for the feedback - reading the discussion and getting others' viewpoints has helped me focus in on the issue - and I'm pretty sure which way I'm going to go.

Silmenume - Welcome to the Forge!  It's truly a rare place on the web where honest discourse about designing and playing RPG's can be had with little acrimony.  You're post was fine - and while long, you had a lot of good ideas.

The game that I've been designing on and off for two plus years now - with occasional and impactful help from the Forge community - does make extensive use of director stance in the mode of play.  Without going into a full set of rules it would be hard to explain here, and that would be more appropriate for the Indie Design forum anyway.  Suffice it to say that the core of the issue doesn't have anything to do with stance.

I agree that objectivity isn't possible - but in the context of a game that heavily prioritizes the Step On Up - I feel it necessary to have the rules that pertain to resource management and game currency as objective as possible.  There is a heafty meta-game layer to the design, and it is at this level that the proposed reward/punishment is going to take place.

I'm concerned that providing the type of currency/resource reward that's the basis of the game everytime the players (including the GM) use 'descriptive language' might ruin the balance of the game's resource economy (for wont of a better term).

One other isse as it relates to objectivity - there is an actual grammatical definition of a simple sentence.  "I hit the orc" fits that definition - objectively by the rules of grammar.  The longer example is decidedly and objectively NOT a simple sentence, again by the rules of grammar.  So the situation may not be as subjective as it first seems.

The real question for me - after the discussion - boils down to the following:

Assume that the reward for using/penalty for not using non-simple sentences in descriptions of actions is 1 Luck point.  Assume also that gaining and effectively spending luck points plays a large part in the character's effectiveness, and the game is designed to try and keep all players 'in need of luck' (i.e. to keep all players in a situation where they have to balance every expenditure of luck NOW off of the potential to need that luck later for a more critical situaion).

So, would granting a bonus of 1 luck point, potentially per player description, mean that I'd have to tweak the challenge level of the game up so high as to break the game?

That's a hard question to answer without the full set of rules - and without some playtesting.  That means I don't expect one - I'm mostly just replying to Silmenume's post and thinking out loud.  I consider this thread to be closed at this point - unless someone has a radically different point of view that hasn't been covered by the participants so far.

I take away from this the following message: It's not possible to be objective (something I slightly disagree with in this instance, but generally do agree with), and it's better to reward good play rather than penalize bad play.  I appreciate all the input.

Cheers,


Jason

[Mike Holmes]

Silmenume,

Objectivity, in a practical sense, is the appearance of objectivity to the point where the opponent will see your judgement as a the sort of ruling that a referee would make. Refs, too, aren't objective, but their lack of bias (theoretically), means that their subjective views can be trusted.

Now, there is a point at which we can make something so mechanistic that the application can't be reasonably seen as subjective. For example, if I were to merely say that the player got the bonus for any sentencve longer than three words, well, it would take a lot of chutzpah for a player to say that a four word sentence wasn't that long. Because there's a level of potential objectivity available there that makes the one making the ruling accountable. All rules of all games are constructed this way.

So, we have a spectrum. In a game of pickup basketball, where there is no ref, players are still able to play by "calling their own fouls". Note the emphasis on the particular rule in question. In fact, said players call their own "out of bounds", moving violations, and all other infractions. But the foul is the call that's least objective (and outside of the called strike in baseball, the hardest call to make in sports). So how do players play basketball with no ref with such a subjective call available?

The honor system is more potent than people think. Because most of us are taught that winning without honor is pointless.

So, while I too like to keep as much subkectivity out of games as possible, there's no reason to try to eliminate it entirely. The rule would work as written. Basically, if the player remembers to say something cool, he gets the bonus. If he forgets (and we all can tell the difference), then he doesn't get the die. It's like the Offer of Cut rules in games like Cribbage and Sheepshead. There's some subjectivity in determining if there was enough opportunity, etc, but it's basically a binary thing. Either they did or they didn't. Like stepping out of bounds in basketball, we're talking a relatively objective decision making process.

Oh, BTW, I can't see any difference if you allow a player to give themselves a bonus for remembering to do something or for penalizing a player for forgetting to do it. They're exactly equal in subjectivity. In fact, given the less acrimonious nature of rewards, I'd guess that they'd cause problems much less of the time than penalties assigned.

Mike

[Christopher Weeks]

It seems much better to me for a game to reward players for play behavior appropriate to the game than to punish them for behavior inappropriate to the game.

The problem I'm having is that evaluating a narration for a positive reward is difficult and always subjective...I would like to remove as much subjectivity as possible...

I think there are two and a half issues at stake here.  First, the effects of punishment and reward.  Then, the role of subjectivity.  And tied to that, a little bit of the role of the players and GMs in administering any motivational effect.

There is a risk, if you care about the motives of the players, that either punishment or reward will actually work against the behavior you hope to increase.  Alfie Kohn, makes a strong case for this notion in Punished By Rewards....  He is mainly focussing on kids and what educators are doing to them, but he also strays into the work world and adult nature quite regularly.  I'm not sure that these notions apply to purely and clearly volluntary activity, but they might.

I think that objectivity is over-rated.  If one goal of the experience of participating in the game that you are writing is to fabricate an enjoyable experience for all involved, then what's so bad about the players rating one another based on the degree of enjoyment created?  I think a creative handling of co-player driven rewards would be best.  Maybe one stat of the character could determine how many rewards could be dispensed to fellow players per unit time?  Or maybe everyone has the same per session budget of rewards and is instructed to reward other players for specific actions that increase the narative fun (or whatever).  I don't see any advantage to having the GM administer these tokens and giving the responsibility to the players helps to engage them in the various other characters' story lines if their characters are not currently involved.

So on the one hand, I wonder if the long-term best interest of the group and of the hobby is served by games that provide such reward/punishment motivations.  (Though I could also be totally off base.)  And on the other, clever mechanics like this are aesthetically pleasing and fun to play with.

Chris

[jdagna]

Here's a problem I'm seeing with this idea:  Players and GMs are all in competition with each other, yet they're expected to reward each other in a way that makes the other person more competitive.

So you're struggling with objectivity because, obviously, these competing parties really don't want to help each other if they don't have.  If you make the rule clear enough, they'll feel obligated to step in and reward each other.  But you're having a hard time making the guidelines strict enough.

It seems to me that what you need is a motive for the players to award these bonuses in the first place.  

What if you do something like this: Give each player 30 (or whatever) tokens at the beginning of the session.  Tell them to give the tokens to other players in reward for good descriptions.  Also tell them that any tokens they have left at the end of the game will count against them in some way.

Now they have a reason to give away the tokens, but since it's easy to get rid of them, players will generally wait until they hear a description that's at least partially good.  Furthermore, I can bet that if the end of the game is approaching and everyone still has a pile of tokens, you'll hear things like "Oh, come on... you can give a better description than that!"

Do you think that might work for you?

[Mike Holmes]

Justin has nailed the problem, it's a conflict of interests to a person being placed in power. They want to win, but they have the responsibility to reward their opponent in a way that will make them more likely to lose.

Your solution is a start, Justin, but I've seen ones like that before, and players will always find a way to play it "gamey" as it were. For example, I could wait until the last moment and give all my tokens away at once at that point. Meaning that the player isn't empowered for all but the last action, and that the reward has no meaning in terms of promoting the right behavior (having been given for completely obvious stratigic reasons). There are probably other "winning" scheduals as well.

Binary is the simplest. And let the player collect it himself, BTW. Yes this is also a conflict of interest, but the honor system will still be in effect.

Player: I make a flourish with my blade as I close to attack. That's skill level 4 with a +1 bonus for description.

Would you play with a player who "cheated" and said:
Player: I attack. That's skill level 4 with a +1 bonus for description.

No, you'd call foul. And the player, not having a reason not to do so, would go back and improve their statement. That's definitely a strong enough indicator. Yes it doesn't measure quality, but I find that effort is what we really want to reward. Can't get blood from a stone, no matter how well you water it (to mix metaphors).

Mike

[Silmenume]

Silmenume,

Objectivity, in a practical sense, is the appearance of objectivity to the point where the opponent will see your judgment as the sort of ruling that a referee would make. Refs, too, aren't objective, but their lack of bias (theoretically), means that their subjective views can be trusted.

Mike

I agree with you description of a practical sense of objectivity, and in my posting if I didn't say so clearly the description you offered was intended.  I agree that a DM is needed, and must be trustworthy, to make such calls.  That was part of my point.  But there is also an implicit understanding that a DM is not perfect and will make bad calls and the players have to agree to that before play or there will be problems.  In a system that claims to be truly objective there will arise issues that if one is faced with a particularly aggressive player in a important situation.  Simply put, "appearance." by definition is subjective.  What "appears" one way to one person may not "appear" the same to another.  In a particularly important matter, lets say one of life of death of a character, a player can argue that the event in question did not "appear" in a fashion that was consistent with what the DM thought appeared.

Let us use a 4 word cut off example for bonus as the distinction between a descriptive and a non descriptive declarative statement.  In other words an action description that has 4 or more words is considered descriptive and one with 3 and less is disqualified as descriptive.  The rule is very clear on this matter.  4 words or more garners a bonus, less than 4 does not.

A player is in a situation where he is near death, let us say 1 point from death.  The DM, playing the foe, declares that he is swinging.  The player knows that if he is hit, it does not matter what the DM rolls for damage, even a 1 on will bring death.  The DM asks the player what is his declared action.  The player says, "I'm gonna parry."  He rolls and misses his parry by one.  The DM rolls, hits and the character perishes irrespective of the damage roll.

However, the player could argue on several gray (subjective levels) that he should have received the bonus.  He could say that "I'm" is a contraction of 2 words and thus should be given the benefit of the doubt and thus should have received the +1 bonus that would have saved his life.  So while the rule is very objective, we start getting into subjective interpretations as to what a word is and how it count's toward the word count.  "Gonna" is also considered a contraction (I looked it up online!), but it has no apostrophe thus making that call a little more difficult.  So is the word count 3, 4, or 5?  So then do we need rules describing what a word is in regards to word count so that the players and the DM know ahead of time how to more accurately phrase their sentences and thus remove a source of subjectivity?

The above was a matter of interpretation.  But what happens if the data itself is garbled?  The DM's hears "I'm gonna parry", and does not award the bonus but the player responds, "I said, 'I am gonna parry.'"  Once again we are thrust into the realm of the subjective.  Each party had a different take on what was said.  Add a layer on this where the player has an incentive to misrepresent himself because he will certainly perish if he doesn't receive the bonus and suddenly it starts to become difficult to distinguish the objective truth in the matter.  I am not saying that the player IS going to misrepresent himself, but that question can hang in the air when the consequences are dire.  So then the subjective questions of did I hear the player correctly - there is no objective way to determine this - or is the player fudging his earlier statement - there is no objective way to determine this either - to save his hide become mired is all sorts of non objective issues.

In a system where 100% objectivity is desired it is irresolvable.  However, a system that is as objective as possible with the understanding that there are going to be times when a subjective call is going to be made from time to time is much more resilient.  I am not saying that objective rules based games are bad or flawed, but rather that such a system needs to allow for the occasional subjective judgment.  This allowance is best handled in the social contract before game play.

The real world, no matter how hard we try to quantify it, is still analog.

In reference to the self-policing of the players I think that is asking for nothing but trouble.  A group or two may be honest as a saint, but most are going to have problems of one sort or another being honest to the point of the death of their characters.  The more that is on the line, the higher the stakes, the greater the incentive for cheating or defection from the ideals of absolute honesty.  An example was given of pick up games of basketball.  I have seen such games, while the players may or may not be fully honest in the calling of fouls; there is always a huge amount of friction when fouls ARE called.  The world if full of examples of the failures of self-policing.  My suggestion is to avoid it at all costs.  Let a disinterested party make those judgment calls and prevent a great deal of friction all together.

Best.

[contracycle]

Here's a problem I'm seeing with this idea:  Players and GMs are all in competition with each other, yet they're expected to reward each other in a way that makes the other person more competitive.

Are they in competition?  Seems to me everyone is sitting around the same table for the same purpose.

So you're struggling with objectivity because, obviously, these competing parties really don't want to help each other if they don't have.

Of course they do; else they would be doing something else with their free time.

[Mike Holmes]

Gareth, the question says that the players are in a competitive mode. Would you say that two chess players are not competing? Certainly competition can exist in RPGs. So the hypothetical still stands. The question is, at what point you can rely on the ethics of a player to overcome their self-interest to win. And that varies.

Silmenume,

I completly agree that nothing it perfect. But that's been a contention of mine all along. It's a spectrum. What you want is to be at the end of the spectrum of objectivity where playing "incorrectly" is easily detectable, making it socially difficult to do. Heck, using your example, I could put out a sentence with seven words, and you could claim that I had said, "I attack." What stops you from doing that is the fact that you don't have a place to argue from. You're obviously breaking the social contract.

Perfect objectivity, impossible. Comfortable objectivity, easy. All you have to do to "fix" your rule is say that if a player doesn't agree with the count that they be allowed to restate their declaration. After all, we're not trying to catch the opponent making a mistake, we're only trying to incentivize him to make the play surrounding the competition more entertaining. So it's not a strategy point at all. By making it easy to succeed at, you take away the incentive to "cheat" on the part of the adjudicator.

Mike

[Silmenume]

Hopefully, without assuming too much, I guess it could be said that we roughly agree with each other about objectivity!

After all, we're not trying to catch the opponent making a mistake, we're only trying to incentivize him to make the play surrounding the competition more entertaining. So it's not a strategy point at all. By making it easy to succeed at, you take away the incentive to "cheat" on the part of the adjudicator.
Mike

Two points here.

The first was an assumption I made about a step-on-up style of game.  I thought that the players, being in competition had a built in incentive to do whatever it took to succeed, to exploit whatever advantages that were legislated, within the parameters of the game system.  It never occurred to me that a player in competition would not aggressively seek to use whatever advantages he could, thus if a player did not use what was openly available to him that was either a matter of choice, or the result of "fog of war."  Basically not using the bonus was a lost opportunity in the heat of battle.

To me there is nothing wrong with that; that is what happens in real competitive environments.  Missing the bonus and thus jeopardizing your victory efforts IS the incentive to use the various tools, in this case being more descriptive.  Because if the player who didn't use it sees himself start to lose his competitive advantage to a player who does use descriptive actions and the subsequent bonuses, is that not incentive enough?  If that is the case is it fair to the other, more on the ball players, for the DM to allow a less vigilant player to restate his actions?  Does that not effect the outcome of the competition, something the DM should not be influencing?  Or if the DM allows all players to restate actions to receive missed bonuses does that not water down the competition and thus the entertainment value of the game?  And if the DM does allow restatements, does that not erase some of the competitive advantages a good player has who does not make such errors (or oversights)?

I do not play step-on-up style of games so I don't really have a good understanding of what players in that style are really looking for.  In the heart of a competitive game I assumed that a players "errors" we part of the competition.  A player CAN strike out in baseball or fail to seize the opportunity to steal a base.  I guess I was working under the, apparently, false assumption that in a step-on-up game competition was an exciting end unto itself.  To me one can then increase or decrease certain behaviors if the game is so designed that such behaviors have a direct impact on the competition of the game.  Therefore it did not occur to me that by letting such an "error" play through was akin to trying to catch an opponent making a mistake as if it were some unsportsmanlike behavior.  I apologize for bringing such unfounded assumptions into my earlier posts.

My second point is to take issue with the idea that a DM, who has a fundamentally different role in the game from his players (implicit in their respective titles) as well as being outside the competition thus having no in game vested interests, could cheat.  A DM, an adjudicator, by definition cannot be in competition with his players for the same goal.  He would either be the outside-the-world-DM-with-omniscient-knowledge-of-the-world thus conferring on him an anticompetitive advantage or he would not be the outside-the-world-DM-with-omniscient-knowledge-of-the-world thus landing him in the role of player.  The DM, as such, cannot cheat, but he can make bad calls.  In the example you cited, there is no incentive to "cheat" because there is no competitive goal that the DM is striving for in league with his players.  The DM may lay obstacles in the path of his players, but that does not place him in competition with his players.  That the DM has the power to adjudicate rules dictates that he automatically preclude himself from competing under the same rules.  He would either have more power in the game than the players or he would have to give up his powers thus balancing play, but stripping him of the very powers to DM.  The conflict of interest could not be sorted out fairly.  The worst he could do is give an unfair advantage to a player, with or without their consent or foreknowledge.  But that would be violating his trust as DM, not gaining an unfair advantage over his players.  A DM implicitly has an unfair advantage over his players that is why he is not allowed to complete directly or indirectly with them.  The referees in football do not play within the same league that they are refereeing.  

Anyhow, I ramble on.  Food for thought.

Best wishes.