Topic: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Started by: Bankuei
Started on: 4/22/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 4/22/2004 at 6:40pm, Bankuei wrote:
Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Hi folks,
I recently picked up BESM D20, and looked into the reward system. You have the industry standard rewards for "overcoming a challenge" and "good roleplaying", both of which are so loosely defined that any CA could fit into it. It seems like the first bit is a holdover from gamist play, and the second is a open door for either Sim or Nar to get in.
Now, BESM D20 isn't the only game, nor particularly new at this, but seems to be part of a larger and older trend towards reward systems that basically say, "Um, yeah, reward whatever you want..." I don't have any particularly insightful thoughts about this, but it doesn't seem to be an intelligent move towards flexibilty that many games attempt to aim for, but rather a simple laziness in design and probable fear of alienating certain crowds by properly loading up the reward system for a particular CA.
And, from personal and anecdotal experience, it seems games with reward systems like this, tend to get modified(aka, rebuilt from the ground up), all the time.
Now, the questions I'd like to ask are:
-Does anyone have any idea historically when and how this phenomenon started? The first game with "super neutral" reward I can recall is Vampire...
-Does anyone have any ideas why this default has been taken besides simple laziness?
-Is there any ways in which folks could(or already have had) have multiple reward systems included in their games for different CAs?
Chris
On 4/22/2004 at 7:23pm, Halzebier wrote:
Re: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Bankuei wrote: Does anyone have any idea historically when and how this phenomenon started? The first game with "super neutral" reward I can recall is Vampire...
Vampire also awards Willpower points based on whether you manage to play to your character's outlook. E.g., a "builder" gets Willpower for creating and maintaing a social network, whereas a "rebel" (or whatever) gets Willpower for defying authority. This part of the reward system doesn't seem neutral.
Regards,
Hal
On 4/23/2004 at 3:45am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
I haven't seen BESM D20, but I've seen that adaptation used quite a bit in old D&D play. The thing is, it doesn't really break out of being gamist.
There's a glaring example, I think, in the design of the Shukenja in OAD&D's Oriental Adventures book. This character isn't supposed to kill; he does get experience points for killing non-sentient monsters (I think) and for gathering treasure, and these help advance him in spell power, combat ability (he must study a martial arts style), and hit points. He also gets experience points for using his spells to help non-associated non-player characters--an effort to reward beneficence (all shukenja are required to be good; they are the Oriental cleric variant). The problem is, using your spells to help others is a path toward what? It makes you more powerful and more survivable.
Thus what BESM seems to be doing is giving out rewards for "good role playing" that buy you greater in-game power. It becomes another level of gamist play: act the character well enough to earn the praise of the referee in the form of power-building points.
It's an extremely common "house rule" that appears again and again in gamist games where the referee is unhappy with the combat paradigm, but all it really does is increase the color and characterization. It does little or nothing for creative agendum.
--M. J. Young
On 4/23/2004 at 6:15am, myripad wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
M. J. Young wrote:
It's an extremely common "house rule" that appears again and again in gamist games where the referee is unhappy with the combat paradigm, but all it really does is increase the color and characterization. It does little or nothing for creative agendum.
--M. J. Young
But so long as the group recognizes this and is only using a subjective reward system as an incentive for the players to act in character, it's valid, right? I don't see how this could be considered an "easy way out" more than any other reward system so long as the group is aware of what it is capable of and what it isn't.
Of course, in many cases, the referee could use a subjective system that rewards "good roleplaying" as a way to railroad the players -- if the characters actions don't suit the referee's vision of the game, the players receive no rewards. I could imagine it being a fairly subtle form of railroading, so long as the players remained convinced that their referee's idea of what "good roleplaying" is happens to be universally accepted by all veteran roleplayers.
On 4/23/2004 at 7:39am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
M. J. Young wrote:
It's an extremely common "house rule" that appears again and again in gamist games where the referee is unhappy with the combat paradigm, but all it really does is increase the color and characterization. It does little or nothing for creative agendum.
Perhaps, but by encrouraging charectreisation and colour, the SIS is reinforced and validated, which may well improve the experience of play even if not perhaps directly via a CA (although Sik would seem best served by such).
On 4/23/2004 at 8:41am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Hi MJ,
Your example doesn't quite fit, because if I recall correctly, the old system gave a somewhat solid answer on what earned those xps, such as casting a spell to heal a person was worth something like 50 xp/level of the spell or something like that. It tied a direct reward to a direct action.
Likewise Riddle of Steel and Sorcerer also tie rewards directly to actions, such as playing out SAs or resolving Kickers. A player intent on fast improvement will go hard for the reward, and actually push for Nar play accordingly. That is why Ron has pushed that Nar and Gamist play aren't that far apart.
In the example I'm talking about, "Good roleplaying" is not really defined to any specific action. This pretty much means it could range from:
-Adding Color to the game, such as nifty one liners to go with monster bashing
-Fulfilling Illusionist or Sim requirements and helping keep the "immersion" or "reality" going
-Making meaningful decisions in terms of addressing Premise
Again, I'm looking for any historical examples of where this has started, if there are any good design reasons for doing this, and if anyone has set up alternative reward systems in a single game for different CA needs?
Chris
On 4/23/2004 at 8:46am, Peter Nordstrand wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Howdy,
I don't have my copy readily available, but I think Dragonquest used to hand out xp partly based on "roleplaying" or somesuch...
On 4/23/2004 at 8:33pm, rafial wrote:
Champions
I recall that Champions pretty much advocated a standard 2-3 points per game award. That's how we wound up playing anyway, that was early-mid 80's.
On 4/23/2004 at 9:03pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Heck, I think they mentioned "roleplaying rewards" in AD&D1E. Or am I imagining that? If not, then I too go with Champions as likely the first to have such neutral rewards. Probably turn out to be some small title, however.
It's not laziness at all. It's not knowing what else to do. Let's say that you realize that EXP support Gamism, and you don't want that. Well, what do you do? You reward attendance. It doesn't support any CA, no, but in not supporting Gamism a GM who doesn't want that, can drift out of Gamism more easily at least.
It's simply a step in the overall historical Gamism - > Simulationism - > Narrativism history. One of the earliest steps on the path to simulationism. Which, after all, is hard to make a reward system for.
Mike
On 4/23/2004 at 10:17pm, DannyK wrote:
RE: Re: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Bankuei wrote:
-Does anyone have any ideas why this default has been taken besides simple laziness?
Most gamers (and game developers too, I bet) don't pay much heed to GNS considerations. From a marketing standpoint, there's an advantage in fudging the distinctions in play styles, so that a game will appeal to a larger pool of gamers.
Take Vampire, for instance. I'm not sure how the GNS gurus have categorized it, but it seems designed to appeal to G,N, and S sensibilities. I've personally seen in played in both Gamist and Narrativist modes (sometimes in the same game, with jarring effects).
You can argue about how Vampire, and the Storyteller mechanics, facilitate one mode of play or another, but that's a different issue.
On 4/24/2004 at 12:56am, rafial wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Mike Holmes wrote: Heck, I think they mentioned "roleplaying rewards" in AD&D1E. Or am I imagining that? If not, then I too go with Champions as likely the first to have such neutral rewards. Probably turn out to be some small title, however.
If we are pondering games with reward systems that incentivize nothing, we might also consider Traveller, which had no method of character improvement (okay, there were some vague rules on training and education) other than to gather stuff within the game.
On 4/24/2004 at 1:27am, Lxndr wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Same with Everway. "Oh, whenever the GM feels like it, you get a Boon, which is anything the GM decrees, from attribute bonuses to a piece of string."
On 4/24/2004 at 3:53am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Hi Danny,
Most gamers (and game developers too, I bet) don't pay much heed to GNS considerations. From a marketing standpoint, there's an advantage in fudging the distinctions in play styles, so that a game will appeal to a larger pool of gamers.
I would say that quite a few gamers and designers DO pay attention to GNS issues, even if they don't know the theory. Most of the time it hides under red flags such as, "System" "Realism", "Playability", "Strategy", "Story", etc. The conflict from incoherence is exactly why GNS theory came about. Instead of addressing the problem, many designers have thrown the problem into the laps of the players with, "Just ignor the rules if you don't like them".
There's three options to take regarding reward systems and explicit CA support:
1- One CA supported
These games are typically seen as highly focused, such as Riddle of Steel, Rune, Call of Cthulu(Chaosium)
2- No CA's clearly supported
This is pretty much what I'm talking about. The frustrating part is that with it being completely absent, it boils down to "build it on your own" for most groups, and often you will find incoherence in play because the group lacks a common language or tools to work with.
3- Multiple CA's supported
I haven't seen any games that do this to date, but I could see it happening if, for instance, we were to take the gamist rewards from D&D 3.0, include a version of the reward rules similar to what MJ is talking about, and finally something like the D&D SA rules that folks have been playing with.
Chris
On 4/24/2004 at 8:03am, montag wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Chris (bankuei) AFAIK TROS is considered a Narrativist-Simulationist hybrid, the Sim part is AFAIK manifest in the not-SA rules, which focus on in-game causality.
So that would be #3
On 4/24/2004 at 5:18pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Bankuei wrote: 2- No CA's clearly supported
This is pretty much what I'm talking about. The frustrating part is that with it being completely absent, it boils down to "build it on your own" for most groups, and often you will find incoherence in play because the group lacks a common language or tools to work with.
Hmm. Are you talking about vaguely worded reward systems, or flat reward systems? I'd agree that vaguely-worded reward systems require "build your own" on the part of the players -- i.e. they have to agree for themselves what "good role-playing" means. However, many systems are primarily flat reward systems, i.e. reward for attendence. While you might not like this as an option, the system is at least easy to use and doesn't require any modification.
I say this because I've almost always gone with flat reward systems in my campaigns. I don't do that because I'm lazy, but because I haven't liked how the alternatives worked out. Voting has seemed like a popularity contest and encouraged everyone to show off. I've never felt comfortable in GM judgement, nor does it seems to improve things. I can go into those in detail, but that's probably a separate thread.
On 4/25/2004 at 9:45am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Hi markus,
Don't mistake the causality issue as a simulationist CA. Remember, you can pull several dice from SAs in TROS that throws the causality out the window very quickly. Also, I wasn't referring to supporting a hybrid, but rather presenting solid options in terms of reward systems. I think this is possible, but simply haven't seen it to date.
John,
I think "build your own" systems and attendance reward systems are the same in terms of what they do as far as support from the text to actual play goes: Neither supports any CA. If you have to build your own, you don't have a solid reward system in place, at best, you might have an estimate of "how fast" rewards should be handed out, though not what for. If attendance is rewarded, in fact, no actual in game activity is rewarded, and no particular activity is encouraged.
Chris
On 4/25/2004 at 9:57pm, montag wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Chris, I'd say that there is no "mistak[ing] the causality issue as a simulationist CA", since AFAIK the focus on in-game causality is one of the major characteristics of Simulationism. You seem to disagree, so I'll go and re-think this, and open another thread if necessary.
It isn't relevant to this thread anyway, since you're absolutely right concerning the reward system in TROS. Apologies for no paying enough attention to the topic.
On 4/26/2004 at 4:54am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Bankuei wrote: 2- No CA's clearly supportedI think John is correct in dividing #2 into games that are unclear regarding what they are trying to reward and games that are specifically not rewarding any particular aspect of play (attendance awards).
This is pretty much what I'm talking about. The frustrating part is that with it being completely absent, it boils down to "build it on your own" for most groups, and often you will find incoherence in play because the group lacks a common language or tools to work with.
3- Multiple CA's supported
I haven't seen any games that do this to date, but I could see it happening if, for instance, we were to take the gamist rewards from D&D 3.0, include a version of the reward rules similar to what MJ is talking about, and finally something like the D&D SA rules that folks have been playing with.
I'm uncertain from this whether you would consider Multiverser #2 or #3. As I point out in the Applied Theory article, one must not conflate character improvement with reward system. A game can have one system that does both, two independent systems, a system that does one but no interest in the other, or no system for either. D&D obviously ties the two closely together, such that reward and improvement are the same mechanism. Sorcerer has strong reward mechanics but completely independent character improvement. Gamma World (3rd or 4th ed, not certain at this point) removed nearly all character improvement and reward mechanics. Multiverser has clear character improvement mechanics but no reward system at all. (I'm trying to think of a game with a reward mechanic but no character improvement, but I'm afraid my game literacy is deep but narrow.)
The question, then, would be if a game has no reward mechanic at all, but makes play its own reward, does it fall into #2 (because no CA is clearly supported by a non-existent reward system) or #3 (because all CAs are equally supported by a non-existent reward system)?
I assure you it is not dysfunctional; players find their niche fairly easily, getting what they want out of the game. This works because of other aspects of the design (particularly the multiple staging aspect, the fact that no effort is made to require the players to work together if they don't wish to do so).
--M. J. Young
On 4/26/2004 at 4:43pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
I think that to a certain extent, something is getting ignored here. That is, the "other" side of reward systems. That is, you can't just look at what the reward is given for, but what it's used for as well. If a reward seems to be given for no particular reason, but it ends up only being useful for increasing the character's combat effectiveness in an otherwise gamist game, then that's a reward that encourages Gamism.
I think the Traveller example is actually quite apt. Rewards are, by their nature, metagame. If you really want to eliminate the metagame, then elimination of rewards seems like a suitable method. That is, for those designers wanting to really support simulationism, you can see why the choice was in Traveller to drop the reward system entirely.
Interestingly, what I see happening in much Traveller play, however, is a substitution of credits as the quantifier of success. That is, I've seen a lot of Traveller play in which the goal was just to get as rich as possible. Not as something selected as a goal by the players, but as a default as the only escallating number on the character sheet.
Mike
On 4/26/2004 at 5:37pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Hi folks,
The reason I lump together unclear games and games that do not reward any particular aspect of play is that for the purposes of this discussion, both seem to be holdovers from other games, rather than an actual thought out design feature.
As far as games without a reward system, they're not really pertinent to the thread here. I'm not trying to list every possible form of game, but rather looking at how reward systems do, or do not support a given CA. Any game that supports its CA just fine without a reward system is great, and I'd like to see more of them.
But we seem to be wandering here, I still have the question:
Is there any case that someone can make for reward systems that do not support any particular CA?
Chris
On 4/27/2004 at 3:03am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Chris a.k.a. Bankuei wrote: But we seem to be wandering here, I still have the question:
Is there any case that someone can make for reward systems that do not support any particular CA?
In the abstract? I'll make a stab at it.
First prong: the reward must be given for activities that either are not CA related or which, if CA related, are supportive of all three CAs. The former would include such as attendance awards, fixed completion of chapter bonuses, and rewards connected to random die roll outcomes (such as a point every time a natural twenty is rolled). The latter would be in essence that someone gets a point any time anyone else at the table appreciates his contribution to the shared imaginary space, by whatever means that occurs. This could include uncovering new information or areas to explore, achieving or making possible a success, impacting the story in meaningful ways, as well as making a good joke or helping the mood or remembering to buy someone's favorite snack.
Second prong: the player can spend the reward in any of multiple ways which would support different agenda. A point could bonus combat effectiveness, permit use of director or author stance, buy contacts to open new areas for exploration, and probably have several other uses.
I should caveat this: it is a driftable design which is open to massive dysfunction. Players with different creative agenda will find that the system is working for them and against them at the same time, to the degree that other players are also using the reward system. In a group with a coherent vision of play, it is likely to fall into place as supporting an agreed CA. In a group with conflicting agenda, it is likely to tear the group apart.
--M. J. Young
On 4/27/2004 at 8:45pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Bankuei wrote: Is there any case that someone can make for reward systems that do not support any particular CA?
My ex-roommate would award experience point for buying him dinner. I'm not sure where he got that from, but he got it from somewhere. We rarely cashed in on that one.
He also offered 200 XP to help him find his scientific calculator once.
Is this what you mean?
On 4/27/2004 at 9:40pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Is this what you mean?
That sounds like it fits with one prong. I was in a game like that once. Points were given for making the referee laugh, helping with game paperwork, orienting new players, writing character journals, wearing cool T-shirts, and just about anything the referee appreciated.
In that particular case, though, those were a special class of "emergency experience points" whose prime in-game function was to prevent level loss from life drain attacks (something the referee disliked intensely but felt were a necessary part of the game). That made the system gamist, ultimately, because the point of gathering these points was to use as a tactical resource of sorts.
That's why I attempted to address both prongs above.
--M. J. Young
On 4/28/2004 at 5:49am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Bankuei wrote: I still have the question:
Is there any case that someone can make for reward systems that do not support any particular CA?
Well, I generally use an attendence reward system, so I suppose I should try to justify it. Ultimately, non-flat rewards boil down to basically three possibilities:
1) Judgement call by the GM
2) Judgement call by the group (i.e. voting)
3) Mechanical formula
Plus any combination of these three, of course. A system could be partly defined and partly a judgement call. An example of #3 might be rewards for how well a character follows his defined Destiny trait or Personality traits. However, I dislike #3 because it encourages exaggerated characters. i.e. If your character has a "Loyal to King" trait and is rewarded for displaying that, then the player is encouraged to make his character constantly display loyalty as much as possible. This can be appropriate for some genres, but it's not generally the style which I try for.
In turn, #1 encourages sucking up to the GM, while #2 tends to become a popularity contest. More importantly, I'm just not comfortable with making judgements about who is a better role-player than who. It also can become a feedback loop for player dominance -- i.e. the players who don't do as well are given less reward, are de-motivated, and fall in the shadow of the rewarded players.
On 4/28/2004 at 6:02am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Hi MJ,
While I understand the variety of ways in which it can happen, I'm still not seeing a positive benefit from utilizing non-CA supporting rewards. Looking at the first prong(what earns the reward), the most plausible one that I've seen was Scattershot's XP dice getting rewarded around the table by players(CA undefined).
John,
I've generally found #1 and #2 as you've described them to be exactly the sort of lazy reward systems that I'm talking about. As far as #3, only 2 sorts of mechanics spring to mind that do not support any CA, that being attendance reward and reward for the lucky roll, but that's about it. I'm not seeing any case for attendance rewards in terms of helping play, though. Could you clarify?
Chris
On 4/28/2004 at 5:45pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Well, let's not be obtuse, Chris. Attendance rewards may actually boost attendance in theory. Which is prerequisite for good play. It's a reward supporting the social contract level in the rewarding, not the CA level.
Look at the other end, again, however. Likely those rewards are going to be character improvement rewards, or narration control rewards, or somesuch. Meaning that they may have some slight slant on that end. For example, I award HP in HQ for attendance, and how much play occurs. This is the "fuel" for narrativism in HQ, each expenditure being an important choice in allocation indicating what's important to the player. Success now, developing some ability later, cementing some relationship at some point, etc.
Mike
On 4/28/2004 at 10:37pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Lazy Reward System & the missing CA
Hi Mike,
Good point. I suppose that clarifies some of the Gamist tendencies I've seen in both the non-D&D D20 stuff and the White Wolf games...while the rewards may not be gamist in earning them, it certainly becomes so in spending.
I'm going to sit with it for a while and call the thread closed. Thanks for everyone's input. Further ideas can be PM'd to me.
Chris