So I'm reading some CS Lewis this morning, and run across this:

There are different kinds of reward. there is the reward which has no natural connexion with the things you do to earn it, and is quite foreign to the diesires that ought to accompany those things. . . . The proper rewards are not simply tacked on to the activity for which they are given, but are the activity itself in consummation.

Funny, I've read that essay, long ago, and I recently read Alfie Kohn's "Punished By Rewards," in which he debunks the whole idea that rewards and punishments are a useful way to change people's behavior and attitudes in the long run.

I hadn't thought of putting Lewis and Kohn together and bouncing them against the Forge. But Lewis observes that there are some kinds of rewards which are so natural to a behavior that they are almost intrinsic to it, and there are other kinds of rewards that are extrinsic to it, and terms like "bribery" and "mercenary" can be applied to the latter.

Game design in the Forge tends to include a lot of discussion of how to "incentivize" or "reward" certain behavior, and I've been thinking lately that if Kohn's right, that whole discussion may be a bit misguided, or at least some aspects of it may be unprofitable, or maybe some of the terms in which it's being conducted need some examination.

However, I can't say that I've read all the relevant threads closely enough to offer an intelligent suggestion in this direction. I've already written a blog post http://ed.puddingbowl.org/archives/002416.html musing about the relationship between a different book by Kohn and a different aspect of Forge discussion, and my conclusion was that you had to be very careful about exactly what each person was meaning by the relevant terms, because a slightly different usage was creating an apparent contradiction where none necessarily existed.

But the general principle in Lewis is one that's pretty important -- when you think about rewarding players, are you offering rewards that seem natural to the activity being rewarded, and integrate well with it, or are you just offering an arbitrary bribe?

Seems like we already apply that kind of thinking all the time - when you hand out experience points in D&D for "good roleplaying", you are just mercenarying Gamist players to do things that look superficially like Sim/Nar stuff, because in the end the XP will get them more effectiveness, which'll make them happier Gamists.

The great thing about the field of social psychology is the host of experiments in which it is shown that the way we are likely to behave is very different from the way we think we will behave.
There have been some interesting experiments on the effect of reward, some of which dovetails with my understanding of Kohn.

I don't have the article in front of me, but here's a sample:
So, the subject is asked to take a test. He or she will receive monetary compensation. Subject comes in. Takes test. Test is boring as all-get-out, and lasts 2 hours. On the way out, the subject gets $5 or $20. A confederate in the waiting room (seemingly about to start the process) asks how the test was, how the subject feels about the whole thing.

You might assume that those who got $20 are more positive about the whole exchange. Instead, those who got $20 say essentially that the whole thing is a huge waste of time, but at least they got the money. The subjects receiving $5 generally report the experience as positive, not too bad, all that.

The given explanation is that a measly 5-spot is not sufficient justification for the chore, but the person completed the chore, so to avoid cognitive dissonance he or she codes the experience as having been alright. While the $20 feels like a bribe, an apology for the dumb test.
This perhaps supports Kohn's views, which seem to boil down to the idea that overapplication of rewards can focus attention on the rewards themselves, rather than the positive behavior. The ol' mistake-the-pointing-finger-for-the-moon phenomenon.


But.

It seems that these ideas are misplaced in a discussion of RPGs. A RPG doesn't seek to affect fundamental changes in behavior. The point is not to gradually promote a new way of living. Reward conditions in RPGs are part of a rules-set of a game. Because we talk so often about building and unbuilding games here, it's easy to forget that we're discussing artificial and static sets of rules that serve to explicitly define the activity of playing. It seems like missing the mark to think about whether the point earned for scoring a goal in soccer is inmical to the greater goal of soccerplaying.

Any game is full of artificially induced behaviors and bribery. That's what games are - you play at something for awhile in order to achieve a victory of some sort. Both Lewis and Kohn are talking about the perils involved with incentivising what should be a natural part of life. It seems to me to be a mistake of scale to take these concerns to RPGs.

-Matt

as a ps - my understanding of Kohn is the "Punished by Rewards" stuff; I'm unaware of his arguments against competition itself. Seems like a shaky position to me, though.

Garbanzo wrote: It seems like missing the mark to think about whether the point earned for scoring a goal in soccer is inmical to the greater goal of soccerplaying.

Any game is full of artificially induced behaviors and bribery. That's what games are - you play at something for awhile in order to achieve a victory of some sort. Both Lewis and Kohn are talking about the perils involved with incentivising what should be a natural part of life. It seems to me to be a mistake of scale to take these concerns to RPGs.

Hey, John.

Sure. I'm 100% with you on the importance of appropriate reward mechanics, and my time on the Forge has convinced me that this is one of the most essential pieces of any RPG.
I was using "victory" in a fairly broad sense, I guess to mean "getting what you want and being satisfied" or something like that. Nancy the Nar will be doing this when she's premise-addressing like a mad dog and bound up in all sorts of intricate moral dilemmas. RPGs are, certainly, different from sports, and the ideas of "victory" are a little more mutable.


But while I agree with your greater point, that reward mechanics are an essential component that needs to be analyzed, I see this as being more in line with establishing the rules of soccer (so that everyone has a fair shake at enjoying themselves, and the game facilitates what people want). I'm disagreeing with the Lewis and Kohn angle. Both of these authors (in my reading of the above-referenced stuff) are warning about introducing artificial rewards where you want spontaneous feeling. While a RPG is, by definition, artifice.
-Matt

Matt,

Both of these authors (in my reading of the above-referenced stuff) are warning about introducing artificial rewards where you want spontaneous feeling. While a RPG is, by definition, artifice.

Eszed wrote: Though I have to say I have a sneaking feeling that CS Lewis might have enjoyed the right sort of RPG

Interesting, MJ. I know that as boys CS and his brother Warren created a very detailed imaginative world called Boxen located somewhere near India, and populated by talking animals; young Clive Staples wrote sagas and histories detailing the adventures and politics of this world. Those papers have been published in the last 10 years or so, but aren't all that fascinating unless you're really a CS Lewis fanboy.

But, it's the source for my suspicion. (Along with his adult appreciation of 'Scientifiction' and fantasy writing, of course).

Is that what Cardwell refers to? It certainly could be characterised as a primitive sort of free-form role-playing. Imaginative collaboration; world creation; shared narrative; implied social contract. Yeah. I don't recall that they ever had any sort of metagame awareness -- no System, no rules -- so don't know whether it really counts. Did Cardwell have something more specific?

Interesting, in any case.

Hey, Eszed.

I've been doing a little thinking about this, and I want to make sure I read you. Your argument is that the introduction of poorly-designed rewards may lead to players focusing on those rewards to the exclusion of the genuine good bits of roleplay.

I almost gots it. But those genuine good bits are going to vary player-to-player, GNS-wise, right? I'm not seeing for myself how a coherent game will fall prey to this. Can you give me a hypothetical example?

-Matt

(and, as a clarificatory point, I agree with you that nobody but us has been talking about RPGs. I think they are talking about introducing artifical rewards where they want spontaneous feeling. Lewis spontaneous, natural Goodness without ulterior motive and Kohn appropriate contructive and norm-compliant behavior. But we are talking about RPGs, and my post above is arging that this is a misapplication of Lewis & Kohn's concerns.
-- I may change my mind, we'll see how this continues...)

Hello,

It has always seemed axiomatic to me that reward system (which is a general term for possibly a wide range of events/procedures in a given play-experience) is intimately linked to Creative Agenda. I would go so far as to say that a Creative Agenda is realized (in the sense of the word meaning "brought about," roughly) insofar as the reward system is in action.

A side note to this leads me to point to yet another way that Gamist and Narrativist play are parallel: the overt personal satisfaction involved in the reward system, at the real-person level. But that's getting a little off the track.

Speaking of the track, what is it for this thread, anyway? I'm not really able to discern what the guiding inquiry is.

Best,
Ron

Uh oh. Ron has given us the death warning . . .

Back on track back on track.

eh.

My original point is much simpler than Matt gives me credit for.

It's this: You'll have the best possible time if your creative agenda (whatever it may be) is supported by the system you are using.

To put it another way: you'll have more fun if the reward system in your game rewards the gameplay you want from your game.

Is that what you are saying Ron? I do think that's axiomatic.

Matt, don't you look for spontaneous feeling when you roleplay?

(Spontaneous feeling just means that "whoa, that's cool" moment, which brings you back to the table again and again).

I think the "whoa, that's cool" feeling can indeed come from any Creative Agenda; my point is that whatever GNS goal gives you that it's best to play within a system that explicitly rewards that goal.

The thing that made me think of it in this way was the quote from CS Lewis, which had nothing to do with Roleplaying games, but which made me realize (again) that peoples' behavior while roleplaying is not so different from their behavoir in the rest of their lives, which made me think of how roleplaying can teach me things applicable to the rest of my life, and which therefore gave me a "whoa, that's cool" moment that I wanted to share with the rest of the Forge.

Make sense?

It's really not an earthshaking an insight, and Ron is welcome to close this down now that I've got it off my chest. MJ and I can geek out about CS Lewis juvenalia elsewhere.

Cheers.

Though, to try to rescue something from this mire, I am interested in why ejh said that "if Kohn's right [about incentivization] the whole [Forge] discussion may be misguided."

Can you expand on this, sir?

Regarding the aside, Reverend Cardwell did not mention to me his source for his notion about Lewis' childhood games; it is also worth note that the man has a particular dislike for D&D and so has a vast collection of unrelated fragments that he claims were role playing games in use prior to the appearance of the game usually cited as the originator of the hobby.

Regarding reward systems, I've always seen them as either reinforcing or conflicting with the primary reward, which is entirely social. I've commented before that Multiverser has no built-in reward system (it does have character improvement mechanics, but these don't reward anything other than the decision to improve the character). What's more telling, I think, is that I didn't realize it had no reward system for several years after it was published, and no one who had played it in all that time had noticed it either. It wasn't until Ron commented about the importance of reward systems in pointing to Creative Agendum (then GNS Mode) that I realized we didn't have one, yet everyone enjoyed playing without it. Reward came entirely from being able to do what you wanted in play, whatever that was, and from being recognized by others at the table as having done something worth repeating later.

I, too, am curious about ejh's comment.

--M. J. Young

Eszed wrote: My original point is much simpler than Matt gives me credit for.

It's this: You'll have the best possible time if your creative agenda (whatever it may be) is supported by the system you are using.

To put it another way: you'll have more fun if the reward system in your game rewards the gameplay you want from your game.