Reward systems need not be unified.

[Vaxalon]

In "Narrativist games and "winning"? Ron says:

I see reward systems as either being unified (perhaps with many interrelated parts, perhaps hierarchical parts) or broken - either the parts don't work well together or the whole thing fails to apply to tons of expected play.

To which I responded:

I disagree with that. 

I don't believe that reward systems must be unified in order to be functional.

I think you CAN have an advancement reward system that runs on one level, and a social reward system that runs on another, both of them independent of the other, and both of them functional.  That has been how all of the DnD games I have ever played have worked.

As the play shifts between tactical and social scenes, the two different reward systems switch off.  The parts don't NEED to work well together, because they're not operating at the same time.  The "whole thing" applies to tons of expected play, because it switches mode to handle the play.

Trying to make one reward system that handles all situations seems odd.

[TonyLB]

Yep.  That's what you responded, alright.

Were you looking for any type of suggestions or ideas?  Or are you just hoping somebody will leap up to disagree with you so that you can have the fun of defending your position?

[timfire]

Vax, what do you mean by "unified"? (I guess I should also ask Ron what he meant as well.)

I agree that a game can have multiple systems that that do multiple things. However, if the combined effect of all those seperate systems is a focused... umm, drive or driection, then I would consider that to be "unified."

On the flip side, if those seperate systems were pulling the player in multiple directions, I have a hard time seeing how that would reliably result in functional play.

[Justin A Hamilton]

So why exactly does this warrent its own thread?

[Vaxalon]

By that definition, Tim, the reward system in the DnD games I have played have not been unified.

The "Kill Things And Take Their Stuff" system, which I'll call "tactical reward," pushes the game in one direction, and the "Talk in character and occasionally roll dice" system, which I'll call "social reward", pushes it in another.  It results in functional play all the time.  This is because the group's desires shift with time.  There's a rhythm to it... an ebb and flow.  Kill stuff, Talk, Kill stuff, Talk, Kill stuff, kill stuff, Talk, talk...  Almost like playing two different games with the same characters.  If you don't like the one kind of play, you can sit back during those scenes, confident that your preferred kind of play will be coming along shortly.  Most players, however, like both, and shift back and forth with the game, comfortably, and the whole thing is entirely functional.

The only time I've ever seen it get disfunctional is when a player insists on converting the kind of scene he doesn't like into the kind of scene he likes.

Tony and Justin, I believe that what I'm saying here is important, as it has implications that extend rather broadly throughout the body of Forge theory; as Ron has said, reward is the center of system, and system is the engine of exploration.  I'm not intending to get into the implications now, though; if the thread gets ignored, that's fine.    My intention is merely to get this idea out, in a thread of its own, where it can be referenced independently of the thread where it was spawned.

I plan on using this point, that reward systems need not be unified in order to be functional, in other points, and it's posted here so that people who disagree with the point can do so without mucking up other topics in discussing it.  That's how Ron wants it handled, as I understand it.

[Sean]

How big is your group, Vaxalon?

I ask because one stumbling block in my learning 'forge theory' was that some of my most rewarding play has been one on one with three different close friends (at different times, obviously) who Drift with me extremely effectively. I think in general Drift is much more viable in games for 2 players (whether player and GM or some other split of duties).

So maybe the way to develop your point is to figure out what makes your group's drift functional. Just used to each other? Do you have cues? Are there actually some people more into one part and some more into the other who tolerate the other stuff OK?

In general I'm more optimistic about managed drift at least for small groups than some, but I'd add that I think we're still at the point where we'll learn more from sticking to CA-focused design, at least for a couple more years.

[Vaxalon]

I have had DnD games with as few as two players, and as many as eight.  The same rhythm seems to crop up irrespective of the size of the group.

It starts to happen after about three or four sessions, sometimes more., with a new group.

I used to think it was just me.

Over the past few weeks I have been "guest DMing" in someone else's group, to playtest a D20 adventure I'm writing.  I sat in with them for one session, then started DMing the session after that... and I saw that they were doing the exact same thing.  I was able to hop in and continue the rhythm with no problems.

Your use of the word "drift" is an interesting one.  The provisional glossary states that it means "Changing from one Creative Agenda to another, or from the lack of shared Creative Agenda to a specific one, during play, typically through changing the System. In observational terms, often marked by openly deciding to ignore or alter the use of a given rule."  This seems to imply an evolution, something that happens TO the system rather than something that is part of the system.

I don't see that what we were doing was drift.  It wasn't something that was planned or laid out ahead of time, but you could set it out as a rule if you wanted to.  "Every other scene, switch from improvisational mode to tactical mode."  The rhythmic shifts were part of the system.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Fred, I think you might consider the issue hierarchically.

An engine, for instance, makes use of something burning. We could talk about rates of oxidation and energy release for the burning alone.

However, this burning is contained in an apparatus which has pistons, affected by pressures from the gas released by the burning. The pistons go in and out.* We could talk about how fast this action goes and how it ultimately makes the wheels go around.

Finally, we could talk about the speed of the car, maybe relative to its weight and aerodynamic body shape.

So the question is, are you talking about true shifts in direction or about processes within a process? To answer this properly (and I want to make it clear that I am not saying you don't have such shifts), you must consider play in terms of reward cycles. E.g., characters levelling up, and people coming back to play after such a cycle has occurred, and lots of related stuff.

Best,
Ron

* Hey! A mechanic explained to me how a Trabi's engine works a little while ago! Any former Eastern bloc folks who want to congratulate me about this, get in touch by PM. ... (pause) ... Well, all right, not that impressive, but I was proud of myself.

[ewilen]

Instead of hierarchical, the model that Fred's proposing sounds like it's cyclical or organic, with no "phase" or subsystem truly dominant--each one feeds and supports the other. The talking provides interest for the fighting, and the fighting provides interest for the talking. The only meta-purpose is sustaining the system.

[Vaxalon]

Indeed.

There is no hierarchy between the reward systems at work.  They don't interact with each other, and neither is subservient to the other.  The narrative flow is, of course, in common between the two, as well as elements like setting and tone, but the two reward systems really don't interact strongly.

Am I the only person who has encountered this?  I'd be surprised if I were.

[Jack Aidley]

It seems to me that what Fred is describing is exactly what is going on in the functional D&D game I describe at Gaming With Minatures. However, I'm unsure whether that is really a seperated reward system. While in the 'kill stuff' phase we're getting our rewards from the system but when playing in the 'talk' phase we're simply doing something we enjoy - there's no reward system backing us up. What this means is that we ever divert from the kill-talk-kill cycle and into a long phase of talk-talk-talk we're stuffed, the reward system isn't giving us anything any more. I'd also note that the 'social reward' Fred is talking about doesn't stop when the 'kill stuff' phase begins, you're still getting whoops and cheers for doing cool and/or successful stuff.

It seems to me that this is the brokeness than Ron is refering to.

[ewilen]

Fred, that's a little different from what I wrote. I was suggesting that the systems do interact with each other. Consider a tight feedback loop of (e.g.) success at facing a challenge -> opportunity to face a new challenge. The arrow here may include rewards such as leveling up, which gives you a panoply of new tools for addressing bigger and more complex challenges.

A cyclical or organic relationship would be something like

success meeting a challenge -> opportunity to talk, and
talking -> opportunity to face a new challange

where neither of the two phases is clearly dominant. In this mode the arrows probably don't contain special rewards--just getting to the next phase is reward in itself.

One complication is that this cycle could be taking place within a larger cycle, and the overall reward of the larger cycle would likely be seen as dominant. (It's now a hierarchical system.)

In your last post you seems to be saying that the two reward cycles work in parallel with minimal interaction. You might want to consider whether there is a larger cycle containing both parallel cycles.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Elliot wrote,

One complication is that this cycle could be taking place within a larger cycle, and the overall reward of the larger cycle would likely be seen as dominant. (It's now a hierarchical system.)

That's my tentative hypothesis for what you're describing, Fred. But really, all this is just guessing about abstractions. What's needed now is a solid account of actual play, in classic Forge manner: who, what relationships among them, system, how long, absolutely any pertinent real-people details, what happened in play in fictional terms, how it went and what went on in real-people terms, and so on.

I'm looking forward to reading it.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

I've got a session coming up on saturday night.  In between everything else, I'll see if I can take concise enough notes to get all that information out.

[Paganini]

Fred, pending your actual play report, I wonder if you've ever experimented with true hybrid gaming?

That is, using one game for certain types of scenes, using a completely different game for other types of scenes. I remember reading about a group who used Universalis like this. It was sort of a meta-layer that handled all the in-between stuff and scene framing, but they would switch to different games depending on the type of scene.

I don't remember the specific games they used, but it would be like using Trollbabe for scenes outside combat, but switching to TROS for physical fights.