Hi everyone.

I've been working on my RPG, and feel that it lacks a bit when it comes to reward mechanics. THe only form of reward that players really get comes into play at the end of the game as a way of effecting the results of the story.

The mechanic works like this: For every action that directly or indirectly advances the character's goal, the GM can grant the player a resonance point. These points are used at the endgame to alter the way that the story ends and effects the world. I can't really explain it all that will right now, because I'm in a hurry, but I can give more detail if you want.

I somehow don't feel that this really works.

Any suggestions on Narrativist reward mechanics that work, or could work in my case?

Kirk

Ok, maybe it will help a little to open up the question a bit more: How are narrativist reward mechanics created? What exactly do they reward, how do they reward that and feed back into narrativist protagonism?

Any thoughts? Have I missed anything significant?

Kirk

Dumirik wrote: Ok, maybe it will help a little to open up the question a bit more: How are narrativist reward mechanics created? What exactly do they reward, how do they reward that and feed back into narrativist protagonism?

Any thoughts? Have I missed anything significant?

Hi Kirk,

Narrativism relies on two things; player input and addressing premise.

From what you mentioned about your game, the reward is based on giving players the ability to affect the story outcome, and that raises several questions:

-Do players have any OTHER means of input into what happens?
-Is this reward give the right to: Create/establish conflicts, narrate resolutions, decide success/failure, create other setting material, improve/alter the character, or many of the above?
-Is the reward constant, like an ability level or is it a limited resource like "plot points"?
-If the reward is a resource and/or directly tied into success/failure, is there any incentive for the players to actually spend or use them, or will they most likely hoard them and keep them for emergencies only?
-What, if anything, in your game, encourages addressing premise?
-Is there a specific premise(Sorcerer-"What is worth your humanity?") or is it wide open(the Pool)?

These things make a big difference.

To contrast and compare, the Pool works because it gives the option for player input(via Director Stance) every time the dice hit the table, OR allows players to get more dice(effectiveness). Either way, rewards happen when dice are used in conflicts, so players are given incentive to get into conflicts. Premise is created and addressed through both the GM and the players (who get their input guaranteed by the narration rules).

Adventure!, a mostly Sim facilitating game, also has some Director stance mechanics, in that players can spend points to get input...but the big difference here is that these points are limited, and hard to get. Between the preplanned plot style advocated by most White Wolf games and the extreme limitations on player input, Adventure! doesn't really help players get input, much less inject or address premise.

A couple of concerns you may wish to look out for in your game in particular:

-If resonance points are rewarded at the end of play, players will have a slower learning curve about what earns reward. On the spot rewards help players figure out what to aim for much faster. This is a bigger problem when trying to show players accustomed to Sim play a new way to do things.

-If resonance points are the only way players have input, you'll need to make sure they have a LOT of them, and not worry about hoarding them.

-You should tie character goals directly into the sort of things that relate to the premise. Check out Mountain Witch and its Fates for a great example of this.

Chris

Thanks Chris and Green,

As I understand it, narrativist protagonism relates to the character's ablity to address the premise. The reward system must feed back into the ability to address the premise. How does one allow both character and player more power to address the premise? So far what you have listed relates to granting more story power, but how is this done?

At the moment I'm sort of thinking of backing off a little from the focus on my game itself, and look at narrativist reward mechanics as a whole, and how they work.

[Edited to continue post]

However, to answer some questions about the game (and because I do need some feedback ;)):

Do players have any OTHER means of input into what happens?

The reward does absolutely nothing in game. Recently I saw My Life With Master and did a little research. I found that it is quite similar (as far as my limited knowledge of MLWM goes) to the epilogue system. The more resonance points you have, the more power you have to narrate the epilogue of the story.

Is the reward constant, like an ability level or is it a limited resource like "plot points"?

The reward is a constant, and cannot be used as a resourse at all.

What, if anything, in your game, encourages addressing premise?

There is no encouragement as such (yet, but I'll get to my ideas below), but the basic premise of the game is "What would you be willing to do for the people you care for?"

Ever since I started this thread, I have been spending a lot of time mulling over this problem, and have come up with some ideas on how to get players more willing to get involved in the plot and risk their characters.

At the moment, there is a resource called "Sacrifice" which can be triggered by a condition called the character's "doom". This is most often character related, and relates to the other characters in the game, so that the characters spend a lot of time setting each other off. If the character's doom is triggered, they can expend a point of Sacrifice (a limited and unreplacable resource) to gain narration rights. The player may narrate the character's actions freely without consulting the cards. However, the more sacrifice that is used up, the more danger the character is in. Should Sacrifice reach 0, the character becomes "fallen" and must try to regain their humanity (having sacrificed it for others) before the other character's become fallen, or the character will be lost. (that was a bit rambling)

There is a problem with this, as I see it. The danger to the character would seem to lead to hoarding, so as well as resonance points, which allow greater impact on the endgame, I have been thinking of granting players player introduced "bangs" (to use Ron's terminology) every time they trigger another person's doom, and granting resonance points every time that player's doom is triggered.

To me, this also seemed to introduce another interesting idea: With player's introducing bangs, instead of the GM, I may not need a GM at all. Players could bid their bang piotns for "Authority" to interpret the rules, and the plot could be manipulated using bangs.

I would like some comments on these ideas, but I think that I'll split these two concepts, the bang bidding for Authority and player introduced bangs/resonance points into two different threads in the Game Design forum. I just needed to get them out into the open.

Ehem!

Back to the show!

Kirk

Instead of asking how one allows players more power to address premise, perhaps you should ask why they don't have that power in the first place?

In my mind, the problem with a reward system in a narrativist game is that reward systems traditionally give players more power vs. the GM/system, in one way or another. However, many nar games don't actually have the GM/system as the players' opponent.

It seems to me that the best reward for addressing premise is the satisfaction of addressing premise. I'm not sure if there can be an in-game mechanism for this at all.

The closest I've come is "applause points", where players give points to other players that do something they like. So far, these points have absolutely no effect on the game rules - they're more like social contract tokens.

The reward system must feed back into the ability to address the premise.

matthijs wrote: In my mind, the problem with a reward system in a narrativist game is that reward systems traditionally give players more power vs. the GM/system, in one way or another.

Just a bit that I wanted to add. Consider that 'reward' mechanics also include mechanical punishment or consequence elements.

Sorcerer is a great example with its humanity mechanics. When ever the player makes a character decision that interacts significantly with the humanity definition of the game, they are given a humanity gain or loss roll. The mere fact that there is a roll means that something of real value in the game is at risk at these moments and that makes a statements relative to humanity.

Trevis

Mike,

Trying to get my head around this...

- I agree that a reward doesn't need to have a use in order for it to be a reward. Token rewards still feel like rewards. So a symbolic reward system (which specifies what behaviour is rewarded, and also that the reward has no use) could work for nar.

- However, if the reward has a use, the only things I can think of are to break some sort of constraint or give some sort of power to the player. That power can be applied against the GM or the system.

- If that power is vs. the GM as adversary, or the constraints are set by the GM, that assumes that the GM is allowed to set up some challenges for the character in such a way that the player must use his rewards to overcome them. Doesn't that mean that the GM is in effect controlling what challenges have to be meaningful for the character/player?

- If the power is vs. system constraints... that means part of the challenge is in the system. Such a system would somehow have to mirror/emulate/represent the challenges the character faces. But then, isn't such a system redundant?

- It seems to me that if the reward has a use in the game system, then that system is actually taking focus away from addressing premise. Addressing premise is its own reward, in my book.

Sheesh... just read the nar essay, thought I understood it pretty well, now I'm not so sure anymore. (I guess we should start a club for people who say just that on these forums...)

You're making this way more complicated than it has to be. In Sorcerer, the reward is given for Narrativism, but can only be used for Gamism. Very simply, bonus dice in Sorcerer are power enhancements that make the character more likely to win in conflicts. Looked at alone, they're very Gamist. But they are given for doing tactically unsound things. So they really can't promote Gamism, because the reward happens automatically on the output end, and is only given for narrativism.

What I'm saying is that you can give traditional power up bonuses as the reward, and the net effect can still promote narrativism.

Mike

Hokay. I'd kind of assumed that Sorcerer was hardcore nar in every detail, and couldn't get that to fit. I'm in danger of going all "one-true-way" with narrativism, and it feels kind of wrong for me to use seemingly gamist techniques/systems in a narrativist game; however, I can see how they can be a means to an end.

I agree with Mike. A narrativist reward mechanic can be granted for narrativist actions, but can be used for gamist or simulationist purposes. But, how would you have narrativism on both sides of the equation? Could you conceavably have a functional reward mechanic that rewards addressing premise and feeds back into addressing premise (narrativist protagonism)? If so, how would one achieve this?

I sort of like rewards to actually do something, because once you get to the point when you realise that the rewards don't actually do anything the system becomes redundant. When I playtested Great Ork Gods with my friends, they wouldn't have given a shit about Oog if it hadn't gotten them more Goblins.

Just some thoughts

Kirk

The "standard" way to empower narrativism on both sides of the equation is what's been suggested already - give the player specific powers to create things neccessary to create more premises. The problem is defining the powers narrowly enough to make it automatically narrativist. Because director powers, etc, can be used for any goal in theory.

But that, to me is unneccessary. That is, restraining such director power probably won't be neccessary, because, informed on the other end that play is about narrativism, the player will hopefully use the powers for more narrativism. That is, director stance powers don't particularly lend themselves to anything else (sure one can win contests with them, but where's the challenge in that?).

All this said, I think this isn't a particularly good way to go. It's very generic. And, worse, incestuous. The "loop" is too tight. I see players getting points, spending them, and then winning them back for spending them correctly. That's always somthing to avoid.

What I like to see is two stage loops at least. That is, the reward is given for one area of thematic exploration, but ends up being useful in a different area of exploration. Meaning that you want to have more mechanics that deal with these things in a more in-game manner.

At least that's my take.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: But that, to me is unneccessary. That is, restraining such director power probably won't be neccessary, because, informed on the other end that play is about narrativism, the player will hopefully use the powers for more narrativism.

M.J. how would you suggest that narrativist mechanics point the player in the right direction, and have reward mechanics "fully encourage" narrative play? Explanations within the game text would help in this regard, but how would mechanics do the same?

Mike, I understand what you are saying, but to have narrativism on both sides of the equation, as well as the dual loop would be near impossible, as far as I can see. How can you grant directorial power, and have that feed into only another part of exploration. Maybe some sort of restriction on how the directorial power is used, but then what is the point of having directorial power in the first place. Better to just have increased effectiveness in that particular part of exploration. Or am I missing something?

I guess what I'm driving for is a "pure" narrativist reward mechanic. A reward mechanic that rewards narrativist play, and can only be used in narrativist play. Not that there's anything wrong with narrativist rewards with other uses, but that's just what I'm looking for. It may not even be possible, but I'd like to try to find it if I can.

Kirk

I am going to have to go back and re-read Legends of Alyria, because I think there are answers to those questions in that game that I haven't fully grasped myself.

I know that the players are rewarded for actions that advance the story by being given inspiration or corruption points. These can be used in a lot of ways.

Inspiration points can be used to override the resolution system in favor of "Good", and corruption points likewise override the resolution system in favor of "Evil"; this is not good and bad outcomes for the character using the points, nor does it mean that the good guys or bad guys will necessarily win this time, but rather that the group will agree on a resolution to the current confrontation in which Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil is advanced.

Inspiration points can buy up a character's flaws and build up its strengths (collectively characteristics); corruption can buy off the strengths and build up the flaws. However, because of the way characteristics are used in the resolution system they are only really useful for creating story and addressing premise. I may have maxed out my character's characteristic, Love for People, but it has the same force used against me as it has used in my favor. Every "strength" is a weakness, ever "flaw" an advantage, depending on how these are called into play. Ultimately, they do far more to define what happens in resolving conflicts than they do to make one character superior to another.

Inspiration and corruption points can cancel each other.

If they are not spent, the accumulation of seven of either shifts the character's Virtue one place. There are only five places for Virtue to hold--you might call them fully evil, partly evil, balanced, somewhat good, and fully good. Virtue, however, primarily defines the character's place in the story. I think it might have a value in determining how much it costs to buy off characteristics, but I don't remember clearly. (The game has gone through several revisions, and I've been following it pretty closely throughout, but I sometimes confuse the rules that have been added with those that have been dropped.)

Thus the rewards given to the players are entirely aimed at factors that enhance story and address of premise.

But that's really a sketchy look at something I'm not remembering terribly clearly (I'm surprised I managed as much detail as I did, and would not be surprised to find I got something wrong). You probably want to look at the game for a better picture of this.

--M. J. Young

Where can I find it.

Alyria is in the independend games section of forge

On another point, I use a similar system, where the points are called karma and taint, Karma being "working for the common story" ans taint being influence of other legends and stories on character that removes player control of character little by little. These points cancel each other, and "karma" can be used instead of "experience" or to enchance fortune.
The newest version states that taint is gotten from usage of non mundane powers against the premise/storyline or blatantly acting in a way that breaks the pre-arrangend player/character thematic role in the game.

Another game Conspiracy of Shadows, did have a similar check and balances system IIRC.

You're drastically overstating my statements, MJ.

What I was proposing is giving a reward for narrativism that had no guidlines for use on the other end. That is, the system is reinforcing narrativism to get the rewards. The point is that, sans other input, what the reward is given for may influence it's use on the other end. It's not strong, but in no way am I suggesting that you give out rewards that have no influence at all on how the players percieve them, and hope that they will produce the desired play. In fact its been my point this whole thread that you can create one side of the equation that's so strong that it influences the other side of the equation.


Kirk, as an example, if one had a game about political issues, one could gain points in the election phase that were only usable in the administration phase, and vice versa. Does that help you see what I'm talking about?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: ...I see players getting points, spending them, and then winning them back for spending them correctly. That's always somthing to avoid.

What I like to see is two stage loops at least. That is, the reward is given for one area of thematic exploration, but ends up being useful in a different area of exploration. Meaning that you want to have more mechanics that deal with these things in a more in-game manner.

Mike, I understand what you are saying now.

How would you make that side strong enough though? An example might be helpful for this as well.

But still, driving towards that "pure" narrativist mechanic (why? I do not know, go ask you dad), but avoiding the incestuous circle, we would need to consider:

- What part of Exploration and behavour you would reward
- How that reward would feed into another part of Exploration and increase the effectiveness of another behavour
- The reward could not be used to gain another reward
- The way that characters and players are meant to impact the story
- How the reward effects the way that characters and players are meant to impact the story

At least, that's the way that I see it.

Alan, in the Universalis example, director power could be used to instigate a conflict, which gains you back a coin. (I haven't played any of these games so I'm just going off how it looks to me) Trollbabe grants a gamist reward for roleplaying, and grants greater player power for surrendering character power, so director power could be used to set up a situation to surrender success, so you gain back director power. Sorcerer has no real circle from your description.

So, in these examples, granting director power for an action leads directly to an incestuous circle. Granting a gamist reward (increased player effectivenes) for a narrativist action generally doesn't. So what are other ways of giving a narrativist reward without leading into an incestuous circle? I believe that the points above hold the answer, but the answer itself eludes me...


Kirk

You might want to take a look at the Trust mechanic in the Mountain Witch. I hesitated to bring it up before because I wasn't sure if it could be considered a reward system... but I don't know what else to call it, and it's the closest thing to a reward system the game has. Something about the Trust mechanic, however, is that it loops between players, not between different aspects of an individual's exploration.

At the start of each scene, a player grants other players a certain number of Trust points. These Trust points can be spent by the receiving-PC to aid, betray, narrate a conflict, or influence the giving-PC.

For the giving player, if they are willing to take the risk of betrayal, they gain the possibility of aid, which grants them a tremendous advantage in a conflict. Now, since Trust points are meant to represent, well, Trust between the characters, simply giving out (or not giving out) Trust addresses premise.

For the receiving character, Trust points give them power over the giving-character. However, the receiving-character must first prove that they worthy of that Trust. Thus for proving that they are worthy, the receiving-PC gains power over other characters. And again, since Trust points represent Trust, simply spending these points addresses premise.

So as you can tell, this creates a cycle of giving Trust and then using Trust, which then feeds back into the giving-PC's choice in how they will give out Trust the next scene.

Hope that all made sense.

I don't have enough time to look at the rules in full (the game looks pretty interesting) but your description is quite helpful. This I think is a form of Exploration of Character, not of your own but of others. Using trust loops into other characters, which loops into other characters. So the only way to gain trust is to place your trust into others. I like it. I think that looping through players is a good way of avoiding a reward mechanic feeding into itself, but I find that the uses of the mechanic are rather gamist, but as you said, "giving out (or not giving out) Trust addresses premise". Does actually giving out or not giving out trust reward the desired behavour though? Does the act of using or not using a reward mechanic influence behavour?

Am I making any sense (I usually don't ;))?

Kirk

First, Alan, perfect examples.

Dumirik wrote: How would you make that side strong enough though? An example might be helpful for this as well.

But still, driving towards that "pure" narrativist mechanic (why? I do not know, go ask you dad), but avoiding the incestuous circle, we would need to consider:

Alan, in the Universalis example, director power could be used to instigate a conflict, which gains you back a coin. (I haven't played any of these games so I'm just going off how it looks to me)

To clarify, when you make a conflict, you roll dice, essentially gambling on the return. So yes it's rewards for rewards, but there's uncertainty in the middle which prevents people from falling into ruts in play (which is the problem with the incestuousness).

Trollbabe grants a gamist reward for roleplaying, and grants greater player power for surrendering character power, so director power could be used to set up a situation to surrender success, so you gain back director power.

That's far enough to prevent the potential problem (in moist cases, I'd think). That is, as long as, basically, you can't get a reward of one type for spending the same type of reward, then you're OK.

Sorcerer has no real circle from your description.

Again, you're fixating on my two circles. Sorcerer does narrativism better than most games by avoiding metagame resources that give director stance. The general mechanics drive narrativism in sorcerer. Most of them.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: The rules as written are far more supportive of Narrativism. Because winning isn't about making good tactical decisions, it's really only about making the right choices for the character (pandering to SAs). In the latter example, the Gamism creeps back into things more strongly.

Too local, John. Instances of play. Yeah, the "reason" that I go for the guy my character hates is to get the dice which is tactical in the short run. But then what? When I kill him, then what happens? Was killing him a good idea when his brothers come looking for me? Will it lead me to look for magic items to power up? Where's the payoff in terms of player ego relating to something other than creating story in play?

In the long run, in overall agenda terms, it's quite supportive of narrativism.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Too local, John. Instances of play. Yeah, the "reason" that I go for the guy my character hates is to get the dice which is tactical in the short run. But then what? When I kill him, then what happens? Was killing him a good idea when his brothers come looking for me? Will it lead me to look for magic items to power up? Where's the payoff in terms of player ego relating to something other than creating story in play?

In the long run, in overall agenda terms, it's quite supportive of narrativism.

I see.

But what I'm saying is that you don't first get into a fight, and then look for SAs to get a tactical advantage. The fights that you get into are largely the result of the SAs (because you know you have the tactical advantage then). See the difference.

Now, if there's some sort of meta-challenge going on for the player with the plot (e.g. he's trying to kill all of the other PCs or something), then selection of the SAs might be tactical at that point. But that assumes a mindset that I don't think the game promotes. Outside of combat, SAs just inform strongly as to what the character cares about.

And, again, if you're playing such that the SAs in use reduce the tactical challenge, then I think we're in agreement that they're particularly narrativism producing in that case.

Mike

I think that you can achieve results that will please Narrativists and Gamists both (a subject near and dear to my own heart).

If half your group panders to their SAs to get the bonuses and kick butt, and half your group kicks butt with the bonuses because it helps support their SAs... well, you've got a group that can play together, right?

If that prevails... wouldn't it be fair to say that SAs are promoting both Narr and Gam play? Or is that sacrilege? :-)

Hmmm, I believe there are some misconceptions floating around this thread, or at least there are some ideas I don't agree with. I think they center around the idea of a 'pure' Nar reward, or around the idea of what is or isn't a Nar/Gam reward, or around the idea of what is and isn't addressing premise.

First, conflict/adversity/challenge by themselves do not Gamism make. All CA's utilize conflict or adversity (& so MJ doesn't have to repeat himself, yes, conflict does mean different things to each CA).

Also, addressing premise does not exist in a vaccuum. Addressing premise is about making a thematic statement through the choices your character makes. In a game that utilizes alot of conflit, like combat in TROS, how a PC gets into conflicts and how the PC's resolve those conflicts is tied to addressing premise.

Here's an example of what I'm trying to talk about: You have a player who wants to make the statement "I will follow Love anywhere."

Now, the PC's wife/husband dies and goes to Hades. The PC wants to go to Hades and join their loved one, but the black gate to Hades is guarded by the Dark Hounds.

If the PC does not have the skill to defeat the Dark Hounds, then the PC is effectively de-protanganized, since the player cannot make the statement they wants to make. Thus, in this example, a system that grants a combat bonus to fight the Dark Hounds actually enables addressing premise. Thus in this example, the combat 'power-up' works to facilitate Nar.

In the above example I see Nar and addressing premise on both sides of the equation. What do y'all think?

[edit: cross posted with a couple of people - also, this is meant to a general statement unrelated to the TROS issues.]