Here's a notion I thought I'd share with you all. A while ago, I posted a message about conducting a survey for my game group to better assess the reasons we all play and therefore improve our sessions. The survey went over fairly well, and we found that we had more in common than I might have guessed, though certainly there were differences, too.

One aspect of our play that changed after discussing the survey was how I distribute rewards among the players. We typically play D&D 3E, and I was very unsatisfied with the challenge rating / encounter level reward system. So, I've now elevated the reward levels for what I deem "good role playing" -- a very subjective reward based on whether I (the GM) think each player performed well and made our session interesting and entertaining. Nothing extraordinary, but it seems to work reasonably well.

We also have an MVP award. The players vote for who they think is most valuable player for the session. Their reasoning can be anything, including "I vote for Dave 'cause he saved my ass," so long as they explain their vote. I award a lump of experience to the player who receives the most votes. My players seem to really like this reward system, and so do I.

Now, the idea I wanted to share is this: I've been mulling over the possibility that either the MVP award or my own GM-granted award determines the general thread of the next session. That is, players are rewarded not only with a nice sum of XP, but also a session that leans a bit more to their character's viewpoint. It might include, for example, a conflict based on that character's background (though certainly the other characters come along for the ride, presumably).

The idea sprang in part from one of my fellow players who GMs another group. While discussing/comparing our GMing styles, he said he likes to orient each of his sessions toward a particular character, giving them an opportunity for the individual character to shine by exploring his background (like a family member or arch-rival, for example). They don't always "bite," but he tries to provide the opportunity at least.

What do you think? Is actually "rewarding" the session in this way worthwhile? Do you think it would work or not?

Well, for one I might suggest that the player have the option of the Exp or becoming the main character for a session. That way, if they feel that their character shouldn't particularly be feature, they can just accept the lump sum EXP instead. If they pass then it becomes GMs option to focus on a particular character, or to just play a "general" session.

Also, the character who is the main character should be omitted from the MVP voting. Otherwise its too easy for that character to just keep rolling along from session to session, and omitting them ensures rotation. Just an idea.

Mike

Good points, Mike. I had a similar concern -- that the "winning" player would just snowball in session after session as the other players become little more than sidekicks.

I do like the idea that players can opt for the XP now or the "story" award later, for which they'd likely earn more XP. It beomes, rather humorously, a system of investment. The player buys futures in his character -- has to be a mechanic for a Wall Street RPG, no? :wink:

Seriously, though, I think it's a good suggestion.

I like the sound of the MVP award -- it might well be worth trialling. Not least, it might give the quieter ones the chance to pointedly not vote for any gasbag who hogs everyone's time without necessarily having anything really worthwhile to say or do.

I have to acknowledge the importance of XP rewards for RP in my then group's development out of our munchkinning teen years. But I had another shock a couple of years ago, when my well-played 'underling' concept chracter started outstripping everyone else in terms of levels. Dammit -- he didn't WANT to be high level, and on grounds of roleplaying I had to nod and smile my thanks to the GM in question, but politely reject the award. I suggest that the ultimate aim should be not to have to issue any rewards!

The compromise might be that better-played characters get some sort of meta-game advantage that might affect play only in tight spots dramatically appropriate to where he won the points. Eg if you started out as 1st levels in a village, the one that roleplayed regretting have to leave his home could get a reward. If at a later stage the party returns and has to rescue the village from marauding bandits, he might have a Passion-like bonus to his rolls to save his Mom that the others wouldn't get. I'd particularly relish telling them why not. :razz:

Hi.

There are, of course, other ways to reward players, like in-game bennies such as money, rank, followers, generous patrons, better relations with NPCs, and so on.

That's one of my personal problems with any edition of D&D. Character rewards are so tightly bound up with mechanical rewards (XP, magic items, level benefits, and so on). I mean, why is it that at 10th level the barony approval committe drops by with a building permit for the fighters?

enter fantasy-realm equivalent of the IRS accountant
"Excuse me, Lord Manhammer, our records indicate that you've just made 10th level. Here is your building permit, your moat water inspection waiver, and your voucher for 20-80 men at arms. Have a nice day."
exit functionary

Lon

[ This Message was edited by: Uncle Dark on 2002-01-02 02:43 ]