Rewarding Players

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Yes, but that's more development than advancement. You only have to use the character trait in THAT game to get the bonus.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Yowch, there's that word "advancement." I knew I'd left something out in the terms-breakdown.

Is "advancement" a synonym for "improvement?" I'm pretty sure that's how Jared meant it. What do people think?

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I think that's what Jared implied. However, Advancement can mean a lot of things. Improvement obviously means what it sounds like. Development sounds more like character personality or depth (an often overlooked source of reward; this IS a cool part of InSpectres). Advancement could mean these things, but could also be reserved to mean social enhancement. The character becomes something else in game. This could be a promotion, or going from being a RuneQuester to a HeroQuester. That sort of thing. An actual advancement of the character along its life-plot (if such a thing can be said to exist). Levels are often referred to advancement, and given the titles that were (are?) assigned to levels, one can almost see a parrallel.

Mike

[Bankuei]

  In most cases, I'm sure people use advancement the same way they use improvement, although advancement tends to imply advancing towards a set goal which may or may not have to do with the character actually improving.

 Of course, different rewards create different goals to aim for.  If the rewards are character improvement, the improved character at  certain steps become the goals.

 As I managed to incoherently mangle out in a previous thread, certain reward systems establish value systems, but do the value systems (and goals to advance towards) match the intended design?

 Bankuei

[erithromycin]

I think I may have confused the issue somewhat, or rather not clarified it. I was asking if experience points are the right way to reflect character development. After all, the idea that there is a currency of improvement that you can turn into all manner of other things says a lot about a system.

Champions, with its 'all things are points' stance meant that you could use Xp to divorce your wife.

Vampire, still with its 'role not roll' nonsense, allowed you to, with a lucky bout of combat, improve your kindred lore.

Cyberpunk is one of the few games were six months of undetected postal fraud can turn you from a weenie into a black market dragoon full body conversion [ahh, those were the days...]

Is any one of these [or any others] a right and proper way to do it? I don't think so. Now, if we keep chatting about it here, that would allow some discussion as to better ways to represent experience [other than points, like the examples I mentioned in the first post], which we can take over to Design and fiddle with.

Though that sort of thing would require a proper theory behind it, although I've got something based on some stuff Jared did that might be worth talking about [in a related way] over in MMT. Interested?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Drew,

I re-read this thread (which was pretty enlightening). If I'm not mistaken, the topic is specifically IMPROVEMENT, that is, the character getting better at things. Also, if I'm right, what you are after is more within-setting plausibility ("realism," or maybe "sense") for the process.

If so, then you are right that the key to this stated goal is to confine improvement to "regions" of Currency.

Historically, the most straightforward approach is offered by RuneQuest. What you succeed at, you improve in, skill by skill or whatever. (Someone on GO, a long time ago, offered the very interesting idea that one could use exactly the same method but instead base it on FAILURE,  rather than success.)

Any reason why this concept wouldn't work at a broader level? Success at metagame-based mechanics or aspects of play means improvement in those things. Success at effectiveness-based mechanics or aspects of play means improvement in those things. Success at resource-based mechanics or aspects of play means improvement in those things.

One could permit more flexibility than the RuneQuest model, if you want, WITHIN each category of Currency. Therefore success at ANY aspect of Resource-type play means points to spend within that aspect alone, but on anything you want.

Nuance: I wonder whether "success" is really the issue rather than "use," mainly because one USES Resource, and generally doesn't roll/etc in order to "succeed" at it.

Is that along the lines you are thinking?

Any and all comments are requested ...

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Erithromyacin,

As I said before, what is your goal? If we don't know your GNS goal, we can't answer the question. Or, in other words, there is a different answer for any particular goal that you are trying to achieve.

Short answer, no, for a Gamist game, it's just fine to have EXPs be spent on anything at all. They are a player reward, and we're not concerned particularly with "realism" in a Gamist game.

Mike

[erithromycin]

Everybody gets rewards from experiences though Mike.

Narrativists get to use whatever it is to tell 'better' stories.

Simulationists get to see improvement where it is merited.

Gamists get toys to play with.

So, taking this, and what Ron said [Yes, that is along the lines I was thinking], what should replace experience points as a mechanism of reflecting a changing character?

The RuneQuest model is one I'd meant to reference, and my Cyberpunk example ignored the fact that a broad based character can earn ludicrous amounts of xp by using different skills at different junctures. One thing that does get ignored a lot in my experience [heh] is that it rewards skill use with xp where it is critical to the advancement of the plot. [How narrativist is that?]

The goal here is to examine alternatives to experience points at a theoretical level, then analyse them within the GNS model for weaknesses. After all, as we are fast establishing, character development is a vital component of the games it seems the majority of us like to play.

To digress a little, I'm a little perturbed by Mike's suggestion that an untethered xp pool is fine for a gamist game, unless you do truly mean anything. After all, if
you could buy a village's gratitude by killing a monster, that would be really neat.

I also think that a truly successful reward/development mechanism would support all components of GNS, or at the very least allow it to be hived off into each of the camps with only a few changes.

To go back to Ron's idea that success in a region is rewarded with improvement in that region, yes, that is roughly what I was thinking.

The real question is, what forms could that improvement take? In a proper situation [and here simulation kicks in], the rewards are what you receive for doing something.

So, the immediate reward for successfuly concealing myself is that I'm not caught by The Watch, but the further reward is that I'd gain some small measure of familiarity with how to hide from Them in future, in similar circumstances. At the same time, however, They might get better at finding people in those circumstances, because they practise. After all, adversaries should be as capable of developing as anything else. Maybe there should be more games where bat guano is a controlled substance.

So can we perhaps examine the forms reward[1] can take, then move on from there?

drew

[1] In the sense of things added to a character, rather than favourable stuff, as the arm to a dragon example suggests.

[Mike Holmes]

I find this post very confusing, but I'll try to adress it point by point.

On 2001-11-13 12:19, erithromycin wrote:
Everybody gets rewards from experiences though Mike.

Narrativists get to use whatever it is to tell 'better' stories.

Simulationists get to see improvement where it is merited.

Gamists get toys to play with.

Are you saying that every game has an experience mechanic? That's not true. SOAP has no experience or character improvement whatsoever. It has a reward mechanic in that you can be the winner. There are lots of other games out there that lack either a reward mechanic or an experience mechanic. InSpectres, as Jared points out has a Franchise improvement system as a reward system, but no character improvement system. Or, am I missing your point?

Are you saying that players are all rewarded by their experiences during play? Well, hopefully. This is why separate reward mechanics aren't necessary to get people to play. Play itself is a reward for the player. Some games go a bit further, however and have additional rewards in the form of mechanical handouts of some sort. These are what create the value system.

Or am I still not understanding your point?

So, taking this, and what Ron said [Yes, that is along the lines I was thinking], what should replace experience points as a mechanism of reflecting a changing character?

Again, I ask, what is the problem with experience points? Is it that they are given for general character experiences in some games and that they are then allowed to be spent on things that are apparently unrelated? Would it help to call them Character Points? As many games do? Or is that still a problem because of why the reward is being handed out? Often these sorts of rewards are handed out on a per session basis with bonuses for good role-playing. These are both rewards for player activities. Certainly you can't object to those rewards being used for whatever?

Or is it simply that you want to keep player rewards in the realm of metagame, and character rewards in the realm of improvement? This has a certain logic to it, but the counter-examples I don't see as being particularly bad. I'm still foundering for what you are looking for.

The RuneQuest model is one I'd meant to reference, and my Cyberpunk example ignored the fact that a broad based character can earn ludicrous amounts of xp by using different skills at different junctures. One thing that does get ignored a lot in my experience [heh] is that it rewards skill use with xp where it is critical to the advancement of the plot. [How narrativist is that?]

Yep, I actually inccluded a reference to BRP as well iun a previous post but deleted it. Your note on the misuse of the Cyberpunk mechanic is interesting. The problem is that while the experience mechanic is intended to produce Narrativist play, it is set amongst the rest of the system which produces Simulationist play. So, no wonder the Narrativist portion of the mechanic gets forotten.

Are you saying that these are examples of good mechanics, in your opinion? Or not?

The goal here is to examine alternatives to experience points at a theoretical level, then analyse them within the GNS model for weaknesses. After all, as we are fast establishing, character development is a vital component of the games it seems the majority of us like to play.

I don't know that character development ever was NOT seen as a vital component for any developer. But what does that have to do with experience and reward systems? are you talking about the usual links between the two?

There are already tons of alternatives to experience points as rewards. Or are you suggesting an alternative in terms of character improvement? If so, BRP is an example of an alternative. Or do you feel that no system yet produced has hit upon a good system for character improvement? If so, what is wrong with them (other than your aparent desire to see "experience points" used in only a "realistic" fashion)?

To digress a little, I'm a little perturbed by Mike's suggestion that an untethered xp pool is fine for a gamist game, unless you do truly mean anything. After all, if
you could buy a village's gratitude by killing a monster, that would be really neat.

Well, I mean anything, or any subset that you wish to define. What's wrong with points I get from killing a monster being used to divorce my wife? In a Gamist game, the rewards are a PLAYER measure of success against the game, and as such can reasonably be used by the player for whatever the game would like to make available. You want to make rewards apropriate to the character task that garnered them for the player, then put in a line that says "Reward points should be spent on some reward appropriate to the task that garnered them. The GM should approve all expenditures." There, that should fix it. Though I don't see why it's at all necessary; the untethered way would be just as fun, IMO.

I also think that a truly successful reward/development mechanism would support all components of GNS, or at the very least allow it to be hived off into each of the camps with only a few changes.

Sure, go for it. I want to see a reward mechanic that rewards me for defeating creatures so I know if I'm doing well (gamist), but only does it in a realistic fashion (Simulationist), and yet also gives me a reward for chopping my own arm off because its good for the story (Narrativist).

The problem is that what you get is what a lot of games have. A mishmosh that makes no sense. Gamist games often include a bonus to experience points for "good roleplaying". Which is an appropriate Narrativist reward. But not at all Simulationist. How can a Player reward enhance my character from a Sim vantage? Can't. Try making three different systems, one for each mode, and use them together to support whichever modes you like. Much easier.

Keep in mind, though, that there are many (Ron) who would say that trying to mix yer GNS is only a source for trouble, anyhow. They (and I) would advocate a reward system that supports the general goal of the system (whichever that should be).

To go back to Ron's idea that success in a region is rewarded with improvement in that region, yes, that is roughly what I was thinking.

The real question is, what forms could that improvement take? In a proper situation [and here simulation kicks in], the rewards are what you receive for doing something.

So, the immediate reward for successfuly concealing myself is that I'm not caught by The Watch, but the further reward is that I'd gain some small measure of familiarity with how to hide from Them in future, in similar circumstances. At the same time, however, They might get better at finding people in those circumstances, because they practise. After all, adversaries should be as capable of developing as anything else. Maybe there should be more games where bat guano is a controlled substance.

From this example, it seems that you are leaning towards something BRPish?

So can we perhaps examine the forms reward[1] can take, then move on from there?

drew

[1] In the sense of things added to a character, rather than favourable stuff, as the arm to a dragon example suggests.

What forms can rewards take? That's a huge question. First, to break things down, there are metagame rewards, and then there are in-game rewards. A metagame reward is given for something like role-playing the character well. This is something that the character has no effect upon. No matter how high the character's intelligence or charisma score, he cannot actually make me play him better in RL. So this is a metagame reward. An in-game reward would be for some acomplishment of the character in the game. Like defeating a monster. If you want to reward that, the reward is an in-game reward. Whatever form the reward actually takes.

Then there is the question of the result of the reward. Often, but not always, the reward is in the form of some currency which can be traded for things. Experience points in D&D are something that can be traded in after accumulating so many for a level. CP in Hero are traded in for almost anything. The other option in general is to just give a fixed reward. This is the BRP method: a successful use of a specific skill is rewarded with a chance for that skill to increase.

The end reward can be metagame, or in-game as well. Metagame would be things like fate points, whereas in-game rewards include such things as character improvement. One could imagine other in-game rewards like changes to the world that the player wanted to see, etc.

I'm going to guess that what you want is rewards for metagame reasonms that can be used as metagame power, and in-game rewards that can be used to purchase things closely related to the activity that gained them. Is that close? Or am I still way off?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

One thing that hasn't been articulated, but HAS been communicated subtly between Drew and myself on this thread, is that Drew would like a Simulationist-style improvement system, sub-class realism. Therefore, the priority is "in-world makes-sense," in terms of activity performed during play being applied, linearly, to exactly how a character improves in any way.

That gives us two options, basically.
1) RuneQuest - do a given skill, improve in that skill.
2) GURPS - do anything, improve anything (else)

What Drew was looking for, I think, was a way to re-frame these options in terms of Currency - and therefore to avoid some of the pitfalls of each one, ie, overly narrow and a tad boring vs. overly broad and lacking plausibility, respectively.

I'm pretty sure my solution worked for him. That leaves YOU as the only unsatisfied person on the thread ... and if I'm not mistaken, clarifying Drew's original position/query ought to have fixed that. I hope ...

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Seems too simple. Is Ron right, E? There still seems to be a queston left unanswered out there. Or is that where I'm mistaken?

Mike

[Bankuei]

  Perhaps what we should be looking at is a family of related skills or abilities that grow as a group instead of simply a single skill.  An old chinese story tells of an archer who learned his trade first by basket weaving for 3 years, watching a candle burn every night for 3 years, and watching his wife's loom every night for 3 years.  This developed his wrists and arms, ability to focus on a still target, and finally on a moving target.  While none of these skills were directly a part of archery, they provided a solid foundation for him to be an archer.

  So, while you practice a skill or use an attribute, the points or growth could happen in a group of related areas.  This is a fairly realistic mechanic, perhaps a little more realistic than Runequest mechanics(Dancers and Gymnasts are terribly strong...)

Bankuei

[Jared A. Sorensen]

While none of these skills were directly a part of archery, they provided a solid foundation for him to be an archer

See also: Karate Kid.

:smile:

I just wanted to chime in with a random thought about character improvement and rewards. I see several types:

Development: The character acquires things (personality traits, material objects, personal contacts) that he can use as resources in later games.

Advancement: The character increases his ability or gains new aptitudes (prestige classes, levels, the ABILITY to gain new abilities).

Investment: The player now has "grist for the mill" for use in later games. Unlike a game where characters are expendable, the player adopts a more protective "my guy" role over the character and it may soon become the subject of the dreaded "Let me tell you about my character..." stories. I think this can happen on its own but is definitely bolsters by Developments and Advancements.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

While none of these skills were directly a part of archery, they provided a solid foundation for him to be an archer

See also: Karate Kid.

:smile:

I just wanted to chime in with a random thought about character improvement and rewards. I see several types:

Development: The character acquires things (personality traits, material objects, personal contacts) that he can use as resources in later games. Finding a +1 magic sword is Development.

Advancement: The character increases his ability or gains new aptitudes (prestige classes, levels, skills, abilities and the ABILITY to gain new abilities -- like lowering your Generation equals a higher blood pool in Vampire). Enchanting your magic sword to be a +1 flaming sword is Advancement.

Investment: The player now has "grist for the mill" for use in later games. Unlike a game where characters are expendable, the player adopts a more protective "my guy" role over the character and it may soon become the subject of the dreaded "Let me tell you about my character..." stories. I think this can happen on its own but is definitely bolsters by Developments and Advancements. Killing the bad guy with your magic sword and giving it the name "Demon-Breaker" is Investment.

Make sense?

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, the HK action flick training method is a fun one. Like in Feng Shui where to gain an ability you have to describe a training montage of this sort to explain exactly how the character improves. This, of course, is more Gamist than Sim as it simply allows points to be spent on anything and then uses the retroactive method to explain the expenditures. D&D (1ed, possibly others) uses the same method requiring the character to go off and train before gaining levels. One could, again, caveat that ponts earned this way should be recorded for how they were earned and then the GM could oversee expenditures. I suggest that this happens a lot, anyhow. D&D3e is the worst violator that I can think of allowing you to buy a level of Sorcerer with experience gained only as a fighter. As a Gamist game, though, it works just fine.

As far as related skills, this is always a tricky one. Rolemaster allows the player to buy either individual skills or categories of skills (with less result, but broader area of effect). GURPs does this a little by having skills default to others, but not very effectively. Hero allows the purchase of stuff that is between a stat and a skill to enhance categories of skills. Lots of options there.

Mike