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

[David Berg]

I'm suggesting developing something like the in-game-effect features of the skill-improvement techniques I'm talking about, but having it affect fictional stuff that is wider than the character sheet, rather than a smaller component of it.

Thus phrased, I've had some trouble running with this, so here's an attempted re-formulation:

A system in which character behavior has in-game effects that reward/punish the players beyond the rewards/punishments delivered to the characters. 

For example:  A character explores a creepy tunnel.  He fails to acquire any loot, knowledge, or skill points.  However, his exploration causes a powerful monster to awaken, which proceeds to threaten the party with future vengeance and then fly away.  The characters now have one more thing to worry about, while the players have one more cool thing about the game to remember.

I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that I couldn't come up with a better example...

Not sure if my re-phrasing is actually identical to Ron's suggestion, but if it helps anyone brainstorm, then cool.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Actually, I'm thinking a lot less abstractly than that, in my suggestion, and not necessarily divorced so much from the characters.

David, I have another suggestion, though. This thread is wandering around because people are losing track of your game in question, and it's all getting into "ideas, ideas, my mind floats free" kind of talk.

Let's take it back to the playtest of your actual game. What exact events occurred, in the fiction, that you think would have actual results on prepping the next session? Once you list those, then I can show you what I mean.

Best, Ron

[David Berg]

Actually, I'm thinking a lot less abstractly than that, in my suggestion, and not necessarily divorced so much from the characters.

Ah, okay.  I've been viewing the current effort in terms of reconciling two abstract quantities (metagame rewards vs. my version of immersive Sim).  Before I abandon the abstract exercise entirely, I'd still like to see if anything more conclusive can be drawn than "can't think of a way to make metagame rewards work with Lendrhald" -- hopefully, either a possibility, or an absolute impossibility.

That said, I suspect that moving away from the idea of rewarding players beyond rewarding characters will make it much easier to generate a good system of rewarding players via rewarding characters.  So, let me see if I can generate a useful example here:

What exact events occurred, in the fiction, that you think would have actual results on prepping the next session? Once you list those, then I can show you what I mean.

Not sure if I understand how this question relates to character rewards, so if my example is not very useful, please clarify.

In my session last night, the PCs made it into enemy territory, looking for a tunnel that would lead them into a large cavern where they could launch the next phase of their mission.  They knew there were five tunnels in a general area, and that Tunnel 1 was blocked off by a cave-in, while the Tunnel 2 was clear.  Running away from a magic-wielding daemon, they hurried into the first tunnel they came to.  After exploring it, they found the cave-in and realized they were in Tunnel 1.  Shortly thereafter, a comrade who had been touched by the daemon exploded, showering three PCs in entrails and bugs.

The original plan had been to go straight to Tunnel 2, at night, with the whole force (35 guys) healthy.  Now, the plan for next session is to dash from Tunnel 1 to Tunnel 2 in broad daylight, carrying the corpses of three guys who died fighting the daemon.

I haven't yet decided whether the daemon is intent on destroying the PCs' entire force all by itself, or whether it will report back to its kin and gather a larger opposing group.  I haven't finalized exactly how far it is from the entrance of Tunnel 1 to the entrance of Tunnel 2, where the route is visible from, and how many bad guys will be there to see the party.  I also haven't decided whether the fact that the PCs still have a little residual slime on them from the exploding guy gives the daemon any particular ability to effect them.  My decisions will be informed by a variety of factors:
1) the players have been frightened and disgusted by the daemon's powers, so I'm tempted to keep it after them
2) the players were fooled by two illusions the daemon cast (masking the presence of a big, tough monster; making it appear as if 30 more were nearby), so I'm tempted to give the players more opportunities to discover that the daemon is an illusionist (this seems preferable to them thinking "why didn't those 30 guys pursue us?  maybe Dave's being nice")
3) I only have two or three sessions left before one player leaves town, so I don't want to slow down their mission with any encounters that don't add much to the experience
4) the last session successfully put the pressure on, and I'd like to keep it on -- while they're scouting their approach route, something must be hounding or hurrying them

Also of note (maybe):
5) I liked the fact that one PC (Kristof) eagerly charged in to help others in combat (it fits his character concept well), but disliked the fact that he stayed engaged with a superior foe longer than he had to (that tends to get you killed, and he seemed oblivious to this)
6) I liked the fact that two other PCs (Rijk and Pip) played some pranks on each other, as it was roleplayed very well and added some humor
7) I liked the fact that another PC (Caius) was willing to take charge of the mission and give orders, and to do some strategic thinking, but disliked the fact that he assumed his superiors would feed the expedition, though they'd said nothing of the sort

[David Berg]

I'm just going to jump on in here, as some of the ideas and mechanisms everyone has touched on have really got me thinking.

Joshua-

I enjoyed the way you spelled out your process in coming up with system ideas.  I've been intending to give a long, detailed response, hitting on all your bullet points, but at this point I think I'd just be repeating what I said a few posts ago (reply #29).  In short, let me say that I think your proposal to generate new, quality setting material sounds like fun, but your effort to uphold immersion doesn't go far enough for my game.  You keep metagaming short and focused on returning to play, which is nice, but you also keep the gaming (character facing SIS) -> metagaming (player adjusting SIS) -> gaming (character facing adjusted SIS) causal loop in operation, which works powerfully against the kind of SIS-experience I'm going for.

With an inspired play group, your mechanics (and George's, and anyone else's I've rejected thus far) sound like a good way to fill the world with more cool stuff... which could then be left lying around for my players to interact with in the manner I see as appropriate.  Once I finish creating some tables that reflect my desired aesthetic, maybe I'll post them here and request playtesting with this in mind.

Thanks,
-David

[Telarus, KSC]

Cool!

Like I said, my "possible mechanic" wasn't supposed to be an immediate solution, but simply serve as an inspiration.

Have fun with the design. Glad I could help you get an idea of how to come up with the proccess. I'd like to see those tables when you finish them.

Namaste,
Telarus, KSC

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

David, I'm not seeing anything in your account beyond tactical considerations of (victory vs. defeat) + (survival vs. death). It's pure Gamist strategizing, on everyone's parts, regarding a mission-based expedition, and that's that. Your musings as GM regarding what the daemon wants, and similar, are establishing further consequences and tactical setups, and not much else.

None of which is a criticism or judgment ... but it does lead to the important point that nothing about this is Simulationist. My earlier advice to you isn't relevant to this kind of play. This thread has gone on for many pages, and I think that's because you led us on a bit of a wild goose chase. The game you're playing is not the one you described earlier, and therefore we can't help you with the real game.

Here's my advice for the game you really seem to be playing:

Your rewards need to be about garnering resources (energy, hit points), protection (armor, harder-to-hit values), weaponry (greater magnitude, wider options), and if desired, meta-resolution advantages (re-rolls, etc).

Since the thread topic is about rewarding the players, and since you seem to be intent on the rewards being in-game or in-character in some way, then I suggest you offer one of the following things:

1. Win conditions. Whoever does the most important stuff well, gets called the winner. This could be killing the most critters, or it could be killing the big bad guy, or whatever.

2. Social privileges for characters. This is a little bit like what I was talking about earlier (and I now comprehend why it was making no sense to you). In this case, whoever does something well during a given session gets to negotiate with the superiors from a position of strength - in effect, dictating to you (the GM) what the superiors decree regarding issues like feeding the expedition.

You can see, I hope, that each of these represents an extreme end of the "in-game"/"meta-game" reward concepts. Each one really rewards the players, period. But the first does so explicitly with no particular relationship to causal stuff in the fiction, and the second does so implicitly, through justifying a particular shift in the status and effectiveness of the player-character in question.

Best, Ron

[David Berg]

David, I'm not seeing anything in your account beyond tactical considerations of (victory vs. defeat) + (survival vs. death). It's pure Gamist strategizing, on everyone's parts, regarding a mission-based expedition, and that's that. Your musings as GM regarding what the daemon wants, and similar, are establishing further consequences and tactical setups, and not much else.

None of which is a criticism or judgment ... but it does lead to the important point that nothing about this is Simulationist.

Running a mission-based expedition automatically makes a game Gamist?  The tactical considerations are not intended to be the inherent point of play, they're intended to reflect the real obstacles of the course the characters have chosen.  My aim is to provide realistic opportunities and consequences for character action, as part of encouraging players to immerse themselves in their characters' reality.  That's a Simulationist agenda, right?

As I said, I was unclear on where to go with your suggestion, and wasn't sure if my example was well-suited to it.  Maybe it was not.  I'll provide another one in my next post.

The game you're playing is not the one you described earlier, and therefore we can't help you with the real game.

The game I'm playing is an attempt at the exact game I've described.  If you think my attempt is a poor match for my aims, I'd appreciate it if you'd spell out why, and suggest a better match.

Here's my advice for the game you really seem to be playing:

Your rewards need to be about garnering resources (energy, hit points), protection (armor, harder-to-hit values), weaponry (greater magnitude, wider options), and if desired, meta-resolution advantages (re-rolls, etc).

These are all fun Gamist elements that many of my players enjoy.  Thus, to the extent that they do not distract from my agenda of immersion in my real-world-based SIS, I am inclined to use some of them. 
- You make yourself harder to hurt by getting armor, which you get by buying it, stealing it, killing someone who has it, etc. 
- You make yourself more lethal by training more with your weapons (debating between BRP-model skill advancement, handing out Character Points for showing up and playing, and some in-betweens)
- The one pure meta-mechanic is that you can permanently burn a point of a certain attribute (Luck) to change a die roll and save yourself from death.

These do not seem to me to be incompatible with a game aimed at immersing players in a potent fiction.  To the extent that they may distract players from that, I am open to ditching them, but obviously I need something better to replace them with.

If the players enjoy killing badguys, fine, and there should be rules to arbitrate this*, but the behavior I really want to encourage is a high degree of attention to and interaction with the SIS.

2. Social privileges for characters. This is a little bit like what I was talking about earlier (and I now comprehend why it was making no sense to you). In this case, whoever does something well during a given session gets to negotiate with the superiors from a position of strength - in effect, dictating to you (the GM) what the superiors decree regarding issues like feeding the expedition.

I see some potential in this, although making a social mechanism transparent enough and deterministic enough to act as a relevant reward might also be an unrealistic immersion-breaker.  I'll come back to this after discussion of the more general issues above.


* Because the real world isn't that predictable, nor is it transparently arbitrated by a power such as the GM.

[David Berg]

Party: Darvtok, Caius, Pip, Rijk.

On a journey to the North, the party observed a structure being built by badguys.  They met some locals and learned that this project had been going on for decades, and that it was the site of a formal human seasonal ritual.  Darvtok, a religious elder from a tradition where seasonal rituals are given huge cosmic importance, tries to convince the party that they have to stop the badguys, go to the ritual site, and purify it.

The party returns to the nearest major city, arguing about what to do.  They agree that it would be nice to kill the badguys and reclaim the site, but Caius is not convinced that there is an imminent threat, and does not want to trouble his superiors in the Imperial government for nothing.  Darvtok threatens that if nothing is done, a star will launch a destructive comet, as happend 100 years ago.  The party then goes to consult an astronomer to see if there's any evidence in the sky to back this up.

Caius goes to schedule an appointment with the Imperial Governor, but finds the man's schedule is booked.  He tells the secretary that his mission is time-sensitive, but the secretary's best help is to suggest that Caius try to trade appointments with someone.

The party goes to the astronomer's house, where he and his father are drunk, watching the sky.  After Rijk offers him water, secretly laced with stimulants, the astronomer perks up and fetches his star charts.  Caius makes small talk with the astronomer's father and discovers he is a wealthy landholder with a coming appointment with the Imperial governor.  Darvtok convinces the man to give away half of his appointment so the party can talk to the governor about a big, bad star.

The astronomer finds no particularly compelling evidence to support Darvtok's claims of imminent doom, but there are a few convenient facts that Darvtok runs with, managing to convince the party that this evidence is good enough.

On the following day, Caius meets with the governor, asking him for 150 men to attack the north, while the party slips in and "fixes" the ritual site.  The governor says no, instead offering 12 men and a limited supply budget.  The party discusses, and decides to plan a mission based on this.


My reactions:

I was glad to see that Darvtok's player used the world knowledge I'd given him, and that the other players became interested in the stars and history as a result.  I was also glad to see that the players' frustration about scheduling an appointment with the governor was directed at the goverment (via the characters), rather than at me, the GM.  I was also glad that it was a very tough call for the players whether to pursue the mission or not, as opposed to them assuming, "This is what the GM wants to run, so let's play it."  I've tailored the numbers and capabilities of the enemy somewhat for fun value, but at the moment, it seems to me that they've walked into a death trap, and unless they come up with a plan I haven't thought of, they're all going to die.  Hopefully for their sake, they can manage to "purify" the ritual site first.

The only rewards that occurred were informal, mostly in the form of players finding out more about stuff that interested them.  I somewhat facilitated this by putting the astronomer and the appointment-holder in the same room, and by making it fairly quick and painless for the party to locate an astronomer.  To be honest, though, if I'd had a good idea of "how one can find an astronomer in this particular city", which I probably should have, I would have gone with that over convenience.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Given the focus of the thread, can you go into more detail about what the players were doing in the session -- i.e. not just what the characters did, but what the players did. Ideally, I'd like you to revise and expand that session-description above going into these questions (among others that will come to mind, I'm sure):

1) What of the various arguments, discussions, and proposals were done in-character, speaking "through" the fictional characters, and which were done out-of-character, the players speaking to each other and to you directly?
2) What of the various positions advocated by various characters were actually what the player in question wanted, and which were just roleplaying flourishes? (I.e. Player X might really, really want to have a big fight scene, but because he likes playing noble paladins, he has his character argue vehemently for negotiations, in the sincere hope his character will lose the debate).
3) How much of the detail - the astromer, the governor, the appointment-holder, etc. -- already "existed" (in your GM notes, or in your mind) before the session started, and how much of it did you invent on the spot in response to the characters' inquiries -- i.e. as a reward for players showing smarts, roleplaying skills, and knowledge of your world and how it works.
4) How much did your players seem to be enjoying or interested by the hunting for information, weighing of alternatives, intriguing for appointments, etc., and how much of their attitude seemed to be "well, we've got to get this out of the way so our characters have the best chance of succeeding in the mission, which is the fun part"? In other words, did they consider this stuff their "homework" to get a reward later (e.g. exciting combat, mission success), or to be fun-in-itself and thus its own reward?

[David Berg]

Before I respond to Sydney's questions, here's a clarification of some things about my game.  I've gotten the impression from what people have posted thus far that we're all pretty much on the same page, but perhaps it's best if I get more specific.  I tried to cover some of this in my last response to Ron, but I didn't do the greatest job of it.

1) Is Lendrhald Simulationist or Gamist?

I began using the term "Simulationist" to describe my game when I read Ron's article on that particular creative agenda.  I thought "these goals sound like my goals!" -- but I didn't compare "what I would expect to happen in a Simulationist game" to "what happens in my game."  Thinking on it now, I still don't have any particular expectation of what Simulationist play ought to look like -- I'd think that would depend entirely on what you were simulating.

What I've been simulating is an environment where, among other things, there are adventures to be had.  I've done my best not to push the PCs into any particular course of action... but thus far it's been pretty much a given that they'll pursue some form of adventure, and I admit I've been facilitating this.  The impetus varies, from money to curiosity to coercion to one PC dragging the others on a personal quest tied to his character concept.  Adventuring (in the broadest sense of the term, not just simple "win or die" treasure-hunting) seems to be a popular path to conflict, drama, and interesting stories/play, so I've seen no reason to re-think this focus.

It seems to me that any attempt to a) have interesting play, which requires some form of conflict, and b) simulate real-world workings will inherently lead to some degree of strategizing.  Players who prefer to rush in without strategizing will be at a natural disadvantage.  To the extent that this dynamic makes a game Gamist, Lendrhald is Gamist.

To the extent that allowing players to get better at tackling strategic obstacles makes a game Gamist, Lendrhald is Gamist.  (Currently, the behavior rewarded in this fashion is simply showing up and playing.)

I don't see how these Gamist elements undermine my goals of immersion (what I've been calling "my Simulationist goals") to any degree beyond what's necessary for enjoyable play.  Anyone who sees this differently, or has an idea for a type of play that seems better-suited to my goals (as expressed in short form here and much longer form elsewhere in this thread), I'd appreciate hearing your perspective.

I hope this is helpful in understanding my game for anyone misled by my previous use of Forge terminology.

2) The current system

Players play, and and are slowly given points to spend, which they generally use to get better at the things they do most in the game.  The scout buys a higher Stealth rating, the warrior buys a higher Sword skill, etc.  This system helps make things fun for the players, but it doesn't help accomplish my goals of in-game immersion and a dark mood.  I would happily replace it with a system that did all three.

3) More system-in-progress

Rules for penalizing activities due to hunger, dehydration, fatigue (strenuous exertion), lack of sleep, and intoxication.

4) What I'm looking to add to the current system pt1 (Immersion help)

Suppose a GM and some players sit down at the game table and agree that they're going for deep immersion in the Lendrhald setting.  If there is some way that a system can facilitate this, I'd like to do that.

Of course, such a system would also have to be as non-intrusive as possible, to avoid breaking immersion itself.

My co-designer and I suspect that non-number-crunching "reminders to think about X" are a good way to facilitate immersion without breaking it.  #3 above is a possible system that would remind players to think about food, water and sleep.  We'd also like players to think about other things that facilitate immersion (list below), but haven't thought of system-based ways to reward this, instead using markers like character sheet layout.

Immersion-helper concerns (character-based):
- food
- encumbrance (based on how you carry it, not just total weight -- "The pick axe won't fit in your backpack")
- what languages you know
- clothing & footwear (& states thereof - wet, ripped, etc.)
- prior mundane occupation (& skills and knowledge therefrom)

Immersion-helper concerns (non-character-based):
- which activities must be played vs. which can be "fast forwarded" through; assumptions/rules for what happens during "fast forward"
- lighting conditions

5) What I'm looking to add to the current system pt2 (Dark Atmosphere help)

Is there some way to use system to reward/encourage players to "get" the feel I want?  How? 

My only idea thus far is a Sanity score which goes down after horrific encounters.  Use of this would have to walk a fine line between being purely descriptive ("I lost a Sanity point, who cares") and being too directly practical ("Damn, now I have a minus 1 to all Will rolls").  Decent solutions are possible (list of Sanity-loss effects for GM to choose from and customize?), but I'm open to ditching this and going in some other direction entirely (or using both if they wind up being compatible).

6) The purpose of this thread

My intent was to use this thread to address #4 and #5 above with metagame rewards, if possible.  In-game rewards are an easier fit for my game in many ways, but I wanted to solicit ideas from folks here who have more experience with and perspective on metagame rewards systems than myself, in the hope of opening my eyes to things I hadn't previously considered.

However, it is beginning to seem that the most useful way to explore rewards systems for my game is to discuss in-game and meta-game options at once.  I encourage people to think meta-game first, but as long as a good exchange continues, I'm comfortable allowing this thread to drift slightly from its initial focus and subject title.

[David Berg]

1) What of the various arguments, discussions, and proposals were done in-character, speaking "through" the fictional characters, and which were done out-of-character, the players speaking to each other and to you directly?

Most of the time, whenever the players started speaking to each other directly, I'd interrupt and say, "Do this in character."  But there were some times when they started doing it, and these were mostly when strategizing (about ways to convince the governor their cause was legit, ways to execute a mission with 150 guys, ways to execute a mission with 12 guys).  Pretty much everything else was kept in-character.

As for speaking to me directly, it's almost always for filling in gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge.  Sometimes in advance: "Dave, my character's dealt with these politicos before, does it seem like they respond best to bluster or to cold logic?"  And sometimes when they don't like an NPC response: "Why is he rolling his eyes?  Do all weaponsmiths demand payment up front?  Dave, my character would know that!"  (Obviously, I prefer questions about the world to incorrect or convenient assumptions.)

2) What of the various positions advocated by various characters were actually what the player in question wanted, and which were just roleplaying flourishes? (I.e. Player X might really, really want to have a big fight scene, but because he likes playing noble paladins, he has his character argue vehemently for negotiations, in the sincere hope his character will lose the debate).

Once Darvtok's player came up with the idea of attacking the badguys and purifying the ritual site, everyone else latched onto that as the most fun option.  The characters accordingly bought Darvtok's bullshit and decided that this mission was important.  Some specifics:
- Darvtok's player used reasoning he knew to be suspect, and that was a roleplaying flourish, but he wanted to go stop badguys the same as his character.
- Caius's player is used to games with GM guidance and narrow story options; he wanted to find the thing he was "supposed to do", and was frustrated by the lack of clarity on this.  (He probably shouldn't be playing Lendrhald at all.)  His character is an obedient Imperial operative, so he roleplayed as such, refusing to lie to the Governor.  He was clearly worried, though, that his honesty would short-circuit the proper adventure.
- Pip and Rijk's players wanted to go stop badguys, but were worried about their odds of survival, so they wanted as much help from the Imperials and locals as possible.  This was generally in tune with what made sense for their characters, except that their characters might have opted a little more toward safety and less toward, "This mission isn't ideal, but let's do it anyway."

3) How much of the detail - the astromer, the governor, the appointment-holder, etc. -- already "existed" (in your GM notes, or in your mind) before the session started, and how much of it did you invent on the spot in response to the characters' inquiries -- i.e. as a reward for players showing smarts, roleplaying skills, and knowledge of your world and how it works.

Already existed: this city contained an astronomer, but not a world-leading expert; the governor is conservative, practical, impatient, disdainful of common folk, and his schedule is booked for weeks; the stars have no conclusive evidence that a comet is coming soon, but have some vague evidence that something bad is more likely than usual.

Made up on the spot: (a) secretary recommends an option that makes sense to me in the context of the gameworld; (b) Imperial governor finds the idea of possibly sacrificing some men palatable and sets his threshold at 12; (c) landholder and astronomer can be visited on one trip.

(a) was partially a reward for the players being invested in this course: having put a lot of thought into making their pitch to the governor, and having spent a while guessing at his eventual reaction.  It was also enabled by good-enough roleplaying in the discussion with the secretary.
(b) was partially a reward for the same reason as (a), and partially for Caius's player doing an excellent job of roleplaying the proper respect and deference to a high official.
(c) was done largely for expediency, to save myself the trouble of figuring out where different estates ought to be and how long it takes to walk between them, and to save the players the trouble of making their "let us tell you about our mission and convince you that it's serious; please help" speech twice.  This was partly informed by the answer to question #4 below.

4) How much did your players seem to be enjoying or interested by the hunting for information, weighing of alternatives, intriguing for appointments, etc., and how much of their attitude seemed to be "well, we've got to get this out of the way so our characters have the best chance of succeeding in the mission, which is the fun part"? In other words, did they consider this stuff their "homework" to get a reward later (e.g. exciting combat, mission success), or to be fun-in-itself and thus its own reward?

This is somewhat at the heart of the dynamic between me and my current group of players.  My co-designer and I have generally approached Lendrhald as, "People who are looking for what it offers will pick it up, play it, and hopefully get what's advertised.  People who are looking for other things will play other games."  Unfortunately, the buddies I'm playtesting with would rather play superheroes and have their way with everything than be frightened and vulnerable average joes trying to make their way with the odds against them.  As such, when conflicting agendas arise, I don't know whether it's a failing of the game or whether it's just a case of the game being asked to do stuff it wasn't built for (entertain guys who love being badass).

So, with that preamble:
The players considered some of the politicking as fun, mostly whenever a positive response (the Imperial fleet commander was pretty gung-ho) presented an opportunity to get more swords for their mission.  Some of the astronomy talk was fun too, mostly when it pointed to their mission possibly being super important.  The players also enjoyed slipping uppers to drunks.  There was also a nice moment of suspense when the players awaited the harsh governor's verdict on Caius's report and request.  On the other hand, I think dealing with the secretary was no fun for anyone, the logistical planning was too open-ended and complex for most, and the cumulative delay in getting on with the mission made people feel like the game was slow.  The mission was not the only fun part, but it was definitely the focus.


Hmm, I'd figured that answering these questions would give me some insight into what to do differently, but I'm not coming up with anything new.  Just my usual "spend more time thinking about the places the party might go so I can depict them well" and "ad-lib funny stuff when players are looking bored" and "prompt players for stuff they need to do when fast-forwarding".  The desire for realism, including character self-determination, winds up deciding a lot for me.

[colin roald]

This is somewhat at the heart of the dynamic between me and my current group of players.  My co-designer and I have generally approached Lendrhald as, "People who are looking for what it offers will pick it up, play it, and hopefully get what's advertised.  People who are looking for other things will play other games." 

I'm sorry, I may be entering this discussion late.  Or rather, I've read all of this thread and some of your previous one (Rewards system for dark, realistic fantasy), but I don't know how long you've been talking about this one.  But this seems to be an important point.  How are you advertising it, anyway?  What is your pitch for the game that's going to draw the people who are looking for what it offers?  What does it offer thats different from say, GURPS or Unknown Armies?

On the other hand, I think dealing with the secretary was no fun for anyone, the logistical planning was too open-ended and complex for most, and the cumulative delay in getting on with the mission made people feel like the game was slow.  The mission was not the only fun part, but it was definitely the focus.

So maybe, from a pragmatic level, this is what you want a reward system for.  The parts that maybe aren't that much fun in themselves, but you consider important to creating the kind of play that you're aiming for.  I don't have any particularly good ideas for how to do that that haven't already been shot down.

You've said you considered the secretary's helpful suggestion to be "partially a reward for the players being invested in this course".  As a player, I doubt I would have seen it as such.  By making your Number One goal be having the world seem to exist independently of character actions, you're denying to your players that their behaviour can do anything like "get a helpful reaction out of the secretary".  You can't simultaneous have expectations that the world runs entirely on its own logic and has independent "reality", and that anything that happens in it counts as a reward for metagame considerations like good role-playing or maintaining immersion. 

In your own head, you may have considered the secretary's reaction a reward, but it sounds like you've gone out of your way to make sure that the players can't distinguish that from the gung-ho reaction of the fleet commander.  You haven't said whether that was a reward or just something you considered realistic for the setting;  this is the same situation your players are in.  My natural assumption is that it was pre-set as the guy's personality, and your players will assume so too.  If you're going to give players the right to be rewarded for good role-playing, or whatever, it has to be explicit when it happens.

5) What I'm looking to add to the current system pt2 (Dark Atmosphere help)
Is there some way to use system to reward/encourage players to "get" the feel I want?  How? 

Give them a mechanic by which they can "buy" a temporary advantage to help with a desperate situation, in exchange for a lasting scar -- either explicitly a physical deformity or a new psychological twitch.  "Your character can no longer stand to be touched by people," that kind of thing.

You could either require narration of in-game events to rationally justify both, or you can say: "we're playing dark fantasy, and dark powers are always ready to offer you a supernatural bargain."

[contracycle]

I disagree with your proposed means of encouraging immersion in the character, the food etc.  Largely becuase these apply to all people in all places; what this reinforces is "I'm human" or similar at best, but it does nothing for THIS character in THIS world.  I think whatever prompts and reminders you have on the character sheet (and that is the right place for them) need to be rather more local and specific.  I like things that draw my attention top how others perceive my character, because after all I am dependant on them, via the GM, to provide suitable feedback.  Thus many of these concerns must be more public than private.  Having sufficient food is less interesting than having either peasants food or lords food.

[David Berg]

How are you advertising it, anyway?  What is your pitch for the game that's going to draw the people who are looking for what it offers? 

I'd rather save those issues for a later thread.

So maybe, from a pragmatic level, this is what you want a reward system for.  The parts that maybe aren't that much fun in themselves, but you consider important to creating the kind of play that you're aiming for.

Makes sense.  That said, it's been hard enough trying to match up "usable Lendrhald reward system" with any "desired types of play".  If I ever wind up with a plethora of system-based incentives, then maybe I'll focus on the ones which specifically help out un-fun activities.

You've said you considered the secretary's helpful suggestion to be "partially a reward for the players being invested in this course".  As a player, I doubt I would have seen it as such . . .

Your analysis of my "rewards" as I described them is spot on.  They weren't part of any system to incentivize player behaviors, they were just a GM helping out players whose play he liked, and doing so in an invisible fashion.

My description was in response to a question from Sydney, I'm curious to see if he had a direction in mind or if he was just giving me food for thought.  (Sadly, my brain is still starving on this thread's topic.)

Give them a mechanic by which they can "buy" a temporary advantage to help with a desperate situation, in exchange for a lasting scar -- either explicitly a physical deformity or a new psychological twitch.  "Your character can no longer stand to be touched by people," that kind of thing.

Mechanics are easy, tying them to realistic play is the hard part.  Lemme take a stab at this one...  Maybe there's some sort of psychological Stress threshold, at which most people simply freak out and run/hide.  If a PC wants to perform a heroic act of will (Will roll) to push on and hold his breakdown at bay after he passes this threshold, he begins accruing Scarred points.  These points accumulate over time until the stress lessens or the PC cracks.  The resultant point total represents the depth of a permanent psychological wound, and the game provides suggestions/examples of appropriate types of Scars for each wound level.

The problem I see with this is the basic Stress threshold idea...

I'm still toying with whether to ever force involuntary psychological responses on characters.  I never want to tell a player that his character is afraid if the player ain't feelin' it.  If he is feelin' it, then I don't see a problem.  But if there's an advantage to be gained by keeping cool, I envision a lot of players making a lot of "my character's been through this kind of thing before, rotting zombies don't phase him!" arguments.

You could either require narration of in-game events to rationally justify both, or you can say: "we're playing dark fantasy, and dark powers are always ready to offer you a supernatural bargain."

This "buy help at great cost" idea has come up many times, and I like it in theory, but anyone with an idea in that vein, please go a different direction than "power from Evil". 

Due to world-balance issues, I have decided that Evil powers are never available to Men (including PCs) in any but the most extremely unique special cases (find magic item, get possessed by daemon, etc.).

I disagree with your proposed means of encouraging immersion in the character, the food etc.  Largely because these apply to all people in all places; what this reinforces is "I'm human" or similar at best, but it does nothing for THIS character in THIS world. 

Well, it separates the world of Lendrhald, in which food must be worried about and starvation is a threat, from my own daily experience, where neither of these is true.  I think a large part of getting players into the SIS is getting them out of the space they normally occupy.

I think whatever prompts and reminders you have on the character sheet (and that is the right place for them) need to be rather more local and specific.  I like things that draw my attention to how others perceive my character, because after all I am dependant on them, via the GM, to provide suitable feedback.  Thus many of these concerns must be more public than private.  Having sufficient food is less interesting than having either peasants food or lords food.

That is a great idea.  I absolutely should have had the Imperials salivating over the vikings' tasty meat and trying to trade their more practical travel rations for it... and the one rich PC should have been forced to choose between eating discretely by himself or having his meal by ogled and envied by everyone else on the mission.

Quality of boots is another thing others would likely notice... if you have nice ones, your companions might start calling dibs if you croak.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Your analysis of my "rewards" as I described them is spot on.  They weren't part of any system to incentivize player behaviors, they were just a GM helping out players whose play he liked, and doing so in an invisible fashion. My description was in response to a question from Sydney...

"A GM helping out players that he liked" is a "system to incentivize player behaviors," though. It's not a formalized system, it's not encoded in written rules, and, most importantly, it lacks any structured guidance as to appropriate cause-and-effect, behavior-and-reward, which puts a very heavy burden of winging it on the GM. But it's a system nonetheless, in which you respond to a particular set of behaviors by the players in a way which rewards such behaviors, and therefore encourages more such behavior in the past.

The vast majority of published RPGs rely on the GM flying by gut instinct through this sort of thing, and it was quite a relevation for me personally when I realized that there were ways to structure it -- to allow the GM to fly with a map, compass, and radar, as it were. And it's much, much easier to do. Most "conflict resolution" systems are all about formalizing this stuff, so the GM (and, usually, the players also) know what's at stake in a given roll, and how the particular action here-and-now will influence what happens next -- whether it's through simply negotiating "if I win... but if you win..." beforehand, or something more mechanical as with the Story Tokens - Inspirations - Debt economy in Tony Lower-Basch's Capes,

If the internal consistency of your world is critically important to you, and you want to encourage people playing your game to really get into the gritty details of that world -- the misery of bad boots, the hungry envy of someone else's rations, the chills along your spine as you walk through the dark forest -- then you need to structure how your world works in some way, or else no one but you personally is ever going to be able to run the game properly.