Topic: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Started by: CCW
Started on: 6/14/2005
Board: HeroQuest
On 6/14/2005 at 11:41pm, CCW wrote:
Goals-based rewards--actual play.
This thread is a follow up from PBEM HP Distribution
OK, we had a go at using goals for experience.
I outlined the system simply, I hope:
* Each character starts with three goals. More can be bought at the cost of 5 hero points.
* Every time you initiate a contest directed towards one of your character's goals, you earn a hero point (win or lose the contest).
* At any time, you may drop a goal. You get 4 HPs for doing this. Goals are automatically dropped if they are achieved, and you still get the 4 HPs.
* You can replace a dropped goal at a cost of 5 HPs.
Last session, all the characters and some of their property had been magically transported from the middle of a large city to the middle of a wilderness that was also the homeland of one of the characters (Enkidu). This teleportation seemed to be linked to the wedding between a player character (Dunos) and an NPC, Kali. The players chose the following goals for their characters:
Aegis (played by Dave C.): Discover the truth about Kali; Resist and protect the mace (Some of the setting's situation I have shamelessly ripped off from Charnel Gods; I have the bad habit of trying to play the games I don't have time/players for in the one I do); and resolve love triangle.
Sumula (played by Susan): destroy demonic magic; build protectorate of humanity (hoped for coalition of humans allied against demonic influence, etc.); understand local magical influences.
Enkidu (played by Mike): Get rid of infidels (otherwise known as the other PCs and the various other city dwellers that had just appeared on his sacred lands); reinstate minataur guard; fathom the mystery of Tikleh (a member of his tribe who claims that their wise woman is demonically influenced); protect his people (I added this one after it become clear that this really was his main goal, and the one originally written on his character sheet.)
Dunos (played by Dave M.): control destiny by achieving power; save Kali; get his people back to the city.
I should say that I had some resistance to this idea from at least one player, Sue, who said, "I'm not sure I should be concerned with HPs on a play-by-play basis. All I want to do is think and act as much like Sumula as possible during game play." For this reason, I took note of the contests and then, when we took a break, discussed with the players how many HPs I thought they'd earned. This would definitely not be my preferred way of doing things; I'd rather players be responsible for their own points with the rest of the group chiming in to remind or whatever. I suppose I can see how it might interfere with the flow of a FtF game, although I don't see this being a problem in PBEM.
The session was a long one of 4-5 hours and according to my notes, each person got at least some HPs out of this system:
* Dave C. (Aegis) earned only one or two points despite initiating lots of conflicts; most of them weren't directly related to his goals in my mind, but more may have been in his.
* Sue (Sumula) got more like five hero points as her goals were constructed in such a way that anytime she initiated a conflict to either fight demonic magic, or understand it she got a point, and there was a lot of demonic magic about.
* Mike (Enkidu) earned two, according to my count, and those only because we added 'defend his people' as a goal; I missed some opportunities to put him in conflict-laden scenes, but I think it might also be true that Mike prefers to role-play his way through scenes rather that make rolls for social interaction, I don't know for sure.
* Dave M. (Dunos) earned at least five, but his character's goals have always been quite clear, and he likes resolving social situations through contests.
After the game, we had some discussion of how the system had worked. Susan worried that some people would be more acquisitive than others and so if players gave themselves HPs some would get more because they'd interpret more contests to be directed at their goals. Dave M. liked the idea of characters having goals, but preferred people got hero points for achieving all or part of their goals, not just for attempting them. Aegis preferred having a base hero point amount, set by the GM as before, with a few more for succeeding at a goal or taking a major step forward.
We also had a question about who gets the hero points in the case when more than one player wants a conflict, and both characters are on the same side of the conflict. Normally one player would make the main roll while the other(s) augment him or her. Who gets the hero points in this case?
Looking at the hero point totals for each player, it seems that wisely or luckily chosen goals can go a long way towards earning a lot of hero points, as can style of play.
Overall, this system was, at least for me, rather a disappointment when used with my group. It's hard to say, however, if the reward system is at fault or whether it has more to do with the reality of a group of old friends who have a lot of fun playing together, but who don't exactly all share the same agendas as players.
Charles
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 15575
On 6/15/2005 at 12:27am, SumSum wrote:
Sumula Postscript
I'm the player referred to above, and I'd like to add to our leader's great notes that there was some discussion about whether players should perhaps award each other the HPs, rather than settling on them for themselves.
I imagined acquisitive player A going about specifically playing in such a way as to obtain the maximum HPs, whereas less HP-focused player B just ran about having fun and later thought hmm, what about those HPs.... or perhaps even said naw, I didn't earn any for that... naw, there couldn't have been any in that situation...
Just a small addition.
On 6/15/2005 at 12:36am, Brand_Robins wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Yea, the issue of "when I give myself HP" either needs to be carefully set up in the rules (game text or social contract) or done by a central figure, if everyone is on a different page it could be problematic.
Of course it could be a playstyle issue as well. The Shadow of Yesterday pretty much assumes that play will be driven by the players getting their characters after their goals most of the time, and getting after the GM's bribe scenes the rest of the times. The way I've played it (the whole once that I've actually played it) every scene ends up being an XP scene because if someone isn't pushing a goal, it doesn't get played.
It also can work for immersive play, an issue that my wife had as well. The thing about it is to realize that the rules are combing rules reasons as well as the usual social reasons to go after things that will push play. Setting up and framing scenes where you know you'll get to bang away at your goal can acheive this, and then let you play the actual scene without having to worry about it. Of course this requires some PC input into how scenes are framed, which isn't in the playbook for some groups.
What else... oh yea, You guys are in Toronto? I'm a little surprised I don't know you.
On 6/15/2005 at 6:07pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Brand_Robins wrote: What else... oh yea, You guys are in Toronto? I'm a little surprised I don't know you.Especially since you've both been in my HQ game. Hey, where's Bryan from? Somewheres up there I know. And EP as well. I suppose with Gloranthacon being there, and Robin Laws (yes?) that it should be a center of HQ play.
Anywho, the way I always envision such rules working, the players ask the GM if their acts count, and the GM OKs them. And when I say Players, I mean any player, including the GM. That is, a player may suggest that his action is worth a point, or another player can, or the GM can, doesn't matter who. The GM has final say, however.
Barring it being solely the decision of the player benefiting, I'm not sure why the percieved problem with player aquisitiveness comes in. Unless some players are saying that they'd just forget, or wouldn't be incentivized to the same extent by the system. If it's the latter, then that's a problem with their perception of the value of HP, really.
But I can see the per contest thing as being problematic in some ways, as mentioned.
How about Per Scene? That is, you get one HP per scene per goal that the player went after in some way? This way you can get used to this bit of bookwork happening automatically between scenes.
Otherwise, I don't know. I mean, the system as I conceived of it was designed to make players push their character's agendas. If they don't want to do that, then, yeah, they're going to be penalized by the system (well, not as rewarded). That's intended.
Further, if a player isn't interested in HP rewards, well then what do they care if other players are getting more than they are? I mean is it the aquisitive players who are complaining? Or is it the "non-aquisitive" players? If it's the latter (as I assume) then what do they care? Sounds like lazy players to me who really want the HP, but don't want to have to work for them.
Interesting how the counterproposal of the one player is actually precisely the standard system from the book.
Mike
On 6/15/2005 at 6:11pm, CCW wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
One really good thing that came out of this experiment was, for me, just getting a clear list of character goals. Whether or not we continue using this system (or perhaps try one where, as Susan says, players award HPs to each other) preparing for games will be easier now that I have a better idea of where people want to go.
Brand, pleased to make your acquaintance now. Perhaps we don't get out much; I think the last convention I went to was probably Pandemonium 2 (for you non-Torontonians out there, this year's con. was number 22 or so). Now that I've started meeting people over the internet, I'd like to get to more of them though.
Charles
On 6/15/2005 at 6:18pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
CCW wrote: One really good thing that came out of this experiment was, for me, just getting a clear list of character goals.Yeah, it's fascinating to me how, despite it being right there on the character sheet, people feel that the Goals field is just something that can be ignored. Optional. I probably haven't made it clear to my players, but the rules say that you have to fill this out as part of chargen.
The reason for why this happens is simple, however. That is, any such character development that doesn't have a mechanical basis to it tends to be seen as "background" to be added at whim or not at all. Like the slot on some games character sheets for eye color. No problem if you don't fill it out, right? What does it matter? No rules associated with it, so...
This is one of the reasons that I wanted to have this system - by putting the mechanical backing behind it, people are sorta forced to list their characters goals, and perhaps give them some serious thought.
Mike
On 6/15/2005 at 6:32pm, CCW wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Mike Holmes wrote: How about Per Scene? That is, you get one HP per scene per goal that the player went after in some way? This way you can get used to this bit of bookwork happening automatically between scenes.
Yes, I think one of the main issues is the way the per contest reward could interrupt the flow of a scene. Awarding HPs per scene would also allow players to be rewarded for goal-directed interesting play that didn't result in contests.
Otherwise, I don't know. I mean, the system as I conceived of it was designed to make players push their character's agendas. If they don't want to do that, then, yeah, they're going to be penalized by the system (well, not as rewarded). That's intended.
Though players have to at least be open to doing this anyway or else the reward system is misdesigned for those players. This reward system may be the sort of thing that some groups take a little while to get used to though.
I didn't even know Gloranthacon happened here. I guess the whole 'finger on the pulse of the gaming community' thing isn't functioning too well for me.
Charles
On 6/15/2005 at 6:54pm, CCW wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Mike, I'm cross posting with you every time. Perhaps we should just log on to IRC:)
Mike Holmes wrote: This is one of the reasons that I wanted to have this system - by putting the mechanical backing behind it, people are sorta forced to list their characters goals, and perhaps give them some serious thought.
I like this too, but I wonder if it might be better to make pursuing your goals a small bonus on top of some other system, or base amount. I know that's one of the ideas you had in mind, with the goal rewards built on top of a per scene or per session reward.
The best part, for me, of the goal-based system is that the HPs are given out whether you win or lose the contest (succeed or fail during the scene, etc.). This promotes more risk taking and much less risk management. I love it when players make decisions because they're fun or meaningful, not because they'll benefit their characters. That last scene in the IRC game last week being a prime example: a player called for a contest hoping his character would be convinced to do something that was, from the character's POV, quite clearly foolhardy (and none too smart from anyone else's POV either).
Charles
On 6/15/2005 at 9:13pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
CCW wrote: I like this too, but I wonder if it might be better to make pursuing your goals a small bonus on top of some other system, or base amount. I know that's one of the ideas you had in mind, with the goal rewards built on top of a per scene or per session reward.I think that would probably work. It would definitely serve the purpose of making goals have a mechanical requirement. But might ameliorate some of the other problems.
The best part, for me, of the goal-based system is that the HPs are given out whether you win or lose the contest (succeed or fail during the scene, etc.). This promotes more risk taking and much less risk management.Yep, this is what I'm really looking for. It's not so much the rewards, per se, but what the rewards inform the players that the goal of the game is about.
I'm trying to pare back the HP rate in the IRC game, given the relatively few contests that everyone tends to get in a session (fewer really hugely important ones). So for that game, how about a base of 2 HP, +1 for each goal pursued in a scene?
Mike
On 6/16/2005 at 1:11am, CCW wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Mike Holmes wrote: I'm trying to pare back the HP rate in the IRC game, given the relatively few contests that everyone tends to get in a session (fewer really hugely important ones). So for that game, how about a base of 2 HP, +1 for each goal pursued in a scene?
That sounds about right, though in theory it allows for 3 HP in a single scene. would +1 HP per scene in which one or more goals were pursued be better, or merely paranoid?
But might ameliorate some of the other problems.
How so?
Charles
On 6/16/2005 at 1:21am, Christopher Weeks wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Mike, whatever iterations of this you run through, I'm excited to try it.
Is there any non-HP reward that could be given? I keep thinking about director-stance privileges, but mostly I think if I had a great idea for the game, I could just give it to you and something like it would happen. (Is that so? E.g. if I wanted the elf that's tracking Egani to show up at Green Lake while we're in the woods, would you move that bang from your list up to the top?) If nothing else, what if we earned hash-marks or something that could be spend on HPs or Advanced Experience if we wanted to save up for the break or <insert any other thing you can think of here>?
Do you want more rolling? I think we could step up the contest frequency pretty dramatically, yielding even larger HP payouts than the ones you thought were too high.
Also, what makes a number of HP too many?
On 6/16/2005 at 1:53pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Charles, it might be better to go with the one per scene. That way people won't feel a need to try to get all of their goals squeezed into each scene. Just one of them. Sounds very good to me.
The problems in question were the ones you and everyone had raised about some players not liking to use contests for social situations and the like. This way as long as the player played into some conflict regarding their goals, whether or not a contest occured, they'll get credit.
Christopher Weeks wrote: Is there any non-HP reward that could be given?Well I'm sure there are. But the question as always is what do we want to promote. You figure that out first, and then you create the reward.
I keep thinking about director-stance privileges, but mostly I think if I had a great idea for the game, I could just give it to you and something like it would happen. (Is that so? E.g. if I wanted the elf that's tracking Egani to show up at Green Lake while we're in the woods, would you move that bang from your list up to the top?)Heh, the Rhiani tribe that's following you outside the ruins right now? They're largely Fred's idea. He communicates with me a lot in between sessions.
To be clear, in my game what typically happens is that somebody will suggest something like this, and then I, as a control freak, will take the suggestion, change it till I like it, and is more surprising for the player who asked for the thing, and put it back in so modified. As I've told Fred, what I do is to find the conflict that the player is asking to have occur, and ensure that it comes up in play - it just might not look precisely like what the player asked for.
In terms of things like geographic details and cultural fact...well take a look at the Teth Hold homeland page: http://random.average-bear.com/ShadowWorld/TethHomeland
Fred made up about 90% of that stuff, especially the maps. So I'd say that I'm quite open to that sort of addition. It's only event descriptions that I mess with. My excuse for doing so is the "Chalk Outlines Principle" which states that coming up with your own adversity as a player, and resolving it as well lacks tension. :-)
Uh, so would I move the elf up? Yeaaaah...but not like you'd expect... :-)
Hey, how'd you get a copy of the Bang list! ;-)
Now, that all said, it's a very different thing to simply act as a conduit for approving suggestions, and giving players some sort of plot points to burn to cause these things to happen. What would change is that players would have a reasonable expectation of GM approval in most or even all cases (else the reward really doesn't work), the players are informed as to how much of this power they have in a quantifiable way, and they are reminded by the points that they have such a power.
I don't tend to broadcast that players can do this sort of stuff - Fred had to ask about it to find out. By putting such points in, players would be explicitly aware that they had such power automatically.
Now, we can probably guess what sorts of bahavior this would produce - the question is, do we want to have that sort of behavior?
Do we? I'm tentatively for it. If we do go for it, how would we meter it? Just an alternate use for HP? Or would these be a separate pool. These options would have dramatically different results (and I'd lean toward a separate pool, myself).
If nothing else, what if we earned hash-marks or something that could be spend on HPs or Advanced Experience if we wanted to save up for the break or <insert any other thing you can think of here>?Sounds interesting (my sim side is twitching), but what's the behavior that we're trying to get to happen here. Continuity between phases? I actually kinda like that the tween phases Advanced Experience exists as a flat bonus which makes it somewhat simmy, and a reward to come back and play the next phase (not that it worked very well for that last time).
Do you want more rolling? I think we could step up the contest frequency pretty dramatically, yielding even larger HP payouts than the ones you thought were too high.Well, I do like the idea of players being incentivized to try to get into more contests. I like that a lot. Because I love what the mechanics of HQ do to play, and, as mentioned, the behavior that we're trying to drive here is to get players to really feel that having the character take risks is something that they should want as a player.
Not that the IRC group really needs a whole lot of push in that direction. :-)
Also, what makes a number of HP too many?When you accumulate HP faster than you feel a need to spend them for either Abilities or Bumps, that's too fast. And we've achieved that level. There are some players accumulating huge piles of HP, and the decision to bump is almost becoming like, "Gee, I have this huge pile that I don't know what to do with, I suppose I should burn one just to get rid of it." That, right there, is too much. There should always be some tension between wanting to use a HP to bump, and the theoretical loss of a raise in ability level. That's so key to how the system works, I can't believe that I went on giving out the huge HP piles that I did.
Basically, IRC play is slow in terms of numbers of contests that you get to, and plot that you go through. And you simply have to give out less HP because of that.
Anyhow, is your idea simply to reduce the number of HP by making some of the rewards the Director Stance Points above? Or something like that? Is that why you bring this up?
Mike
On 6/16/2005 at 5:15pm, Christopher Weeks wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Mike Holmes wrote: Anyhow, is your idea simply to reduce the number of HP by making some of the rewards the Director Stance Points above? Or something like that? Is that why you bring this up?
I actually like the five HP per session that you were giving out for the first bunch of sessions that I played in -- I was spending them all with a buffer of 8-10 for bumps (which is more than I should have).
And I like having more than one kind of thing to spend a currency on, preferably at different rates -- tuned so that people can reasonably choose any of the possibilities. So it seemed like a natural suggestion for this topc.
And since you seemed concerned about the HP accumulation and I saw the potential for even more than the number you were concerned with, the idea fit all together nicely. Of course, getting the details straight is the trick with such a system.
So part of my last note was to figure out what kinds of behavior you wanted to promote. You're in favor of more contests. But you also asked the same kinds of questions back. I don't have strong opinions. I think the game's dynamic works pretty well as it is, so maybe I shouldn't be so openly favoring change. But the goal-reward system seems so cool that it seems a shame not to refine it to a sweet spot. I didn't suggest advanced experience as a continuity measure, but because I just wanted more kinds of rewards to be possible and if the numbers were right, it's something I'd buy for Egani instead of more HPs. (Probably something like 3:1 or 4:1 is the most you could charge, coupled with having to wait for the phase-break to spend them.
And I definately think Director Stance Points should not simply be an alternate way of spending HPs. How to meter them? Dunno. How is it having Thomas co-GM? How much flexibility did you give him to introduce totally new stuff? If the answer is more than "none" (which it might not be, I guess) then how did you meter his role? Could they be Universalis Coins -- spent (almost?) all the same ways? Could I use them to Challenge your introduction of an NPC? Could I introduce them on my own -- with authority? Would such power be too disruptive to the kind of game experience that HQ provides?
On 6/16/2005 at 10:12pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Christopher Weeks wrote: I actually like the five HP per session that you were giving out for the first bunch of sessions that I played in -- I was spending them all with a buffer of 8-10 for bumps (which is more than I should have).Yeah, that's just ridiculous. I mean, when you're not likely to face more than 3 contests between the beginning of the session and the end where you'll get more, why would one need to keep 8 or more HP for bumps?
In FTF play I actually have people run out a times.
So part of my last note was to figure out what kinds of behavior you wanted to promote. You're in favor of more contests. But you also asked the same kinds of questions back.Yeah, well, my objectives with the system were very simple:
1) Give teeth to goals.
2) Make people take on more contests.
That's all I was interested in to start. Your proposals are giving me new ideas, however.
...it's something I'd buy for Egani instead of more HPs. (Probably something like 3:1 or 4:1 is the most you could charge, coupled with having to wait for the phase-break to spend them.Not sure how this would work. I mean, if you can buy them right before you go into the interphase, then why not wait until that point. Basically horde your HP and spend them then - or before if an emergency comes up. What this would do, I'm afraid, is ensure that everyone has a stockpile, which is precisely what I've been trying to avoid. Yeah, every point you'd have to worry about the interphase, but what if some player wasn't interested in continuing?
Or are you saying allow Advanced Experience purchases during the course of play? That I'd be very against as it's not even close to balanced. That is, with a keyword increase, you typically get more than 10 HP worth of increases in ability (without considering any abilities that may show up from the keyword), and sometimes a lot more. See my standard rant #4 http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2051
How to meter them? Dunno. How is it having Thomas co-GM? How much flexibility did you give him to introduce totally new stuff? If the answer is more than "none" (which it might not be, I guess) then how did you meter his role?Not my question. I mean how to give them out. What for?
But to answer your question, they'd be more expansive than Universalis Coins. Considerably. You could, for example add a city with all the details that you wanted to add.
Mike
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 2051
On 6/16/2005 at 10:45pm, Christopher Weeks wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Mike Holmes wrote: Or are you saying allow Advanced Experience purchases during the course of play?
I meant that contests that address goals would yield "hash marks" or "potentials" or whatever. Players could convert those into HPs, DSPs or Advanced Experience -- to be spent at phase break. Maybe players would have to spend them down to below the cost of the cheapest of these (HPs?) each session, but I hadn't thought of that until writing this. I think this also answers the question about my thoughts on metering them.
I was thinking on this matter while out running errands today. Considering Egani, I could any of five Keywords: Shay, Sel-Kai, Tinker, Physician, or A'Kesh. Shay seems like it'd be useless. Sel-Kai seems like kind of a dud, but not totally so. Of the other three, I could get 14 or 15 or 15 HPs worth (if I've counted Grimoire advancement right). And while I know there are other abilities yet to be explicated for those keywords, I don't think that (with the possible exception of the magic keyword) they're worth ~15 HPs of more directed advancement. So, my 4:1 might have been low, but I think 10:1 is too high. (If my experience with this one character is indicative of characters and keywords across the game-experience.)
On 6/17/2005 at 2:06pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Christopher Weeks wrote: I meant that contests that address goals would yield "hash marks" or "potentials" or whatever. Players could convert those into HPs, DSPs or Advanced Experience -- to be spent at phase break.Just to be clear: They have to choose what they are when they get them? Is that it? So that they can't wait and convert later? But they don't get the benefit of the Advanced Experience until Phase Break?
That could work.
Maybe players would have to spend them down to below the cost of the cheapest of these (HPs?) each session, but I hadn't thought of that until writing this.Again, clarifiying: they have to spend until they can't afford anything else, right? So if HP were cheapest at 2 of these, then they'd have to spend down to 0 ro 1. Correct? In this case, I'd probably just make HP cost 1, and say that you have to spend them all.
The problem with this is that, if, say, a level of Advanced Experience cost 5 HP, then unless you got that many as a result of play, you wouldn't ever be able to purchase one. In fact, even if players were getting like 8 per session, I think spending 5 on an AE level would be rare, because it would mean that they'd be getting very little in the way of HPs to spend on both bumps and current ability increases.
If you put the total up to, say, 12 HP per session, then people would buy them, but a player disintrested in long-term advancement might just buy 12 HP. Which, again, is just too much.
If you increase the cost of HP proportional to AE, then, again, I think you run into the choice balance problem, and people will buy up a lot of AE. Even at 3 to one, AE are really powerful. The delay might make people think twice, but...
I was thinking on this matter while out running errands today. Considering Egani, I could any of five Keywords: Shay, Sel-Kai, Tinker, Physician, or A'Kesh. Shay seems like it'd be useless.In point of fact, you can't buy up a species keyword - there's no keyword rating, just a package of abilities at varying levels. You can't get better at being physically human. All sim aside, it's just not a dramatic thing to do, either, in terms of character development.
Sel-Kai seems like kind of a dud, but not totally so.I think that you're overlooking one here. I think most players will pass, too, but in the PBEM, one character took all his AE on his homeland, and it's been very, very useful to him.
Of the other three, I could get 14 or 15 or 15 HPs worth (if I've counted Grimoire advancement right). And while I know there are other abilities yet to be explicated for those keywords, I don't think that (with the possible exception of the magic keyword) they're worth ~15 HPs of more directed advancement. So, my 4:1 might have been low, but I think 10:1 is too high.I was talking direct conversion. Which would be what you'd have to do in the case of being able to take either one or the other simultaneously - as opposed to having to wait for phase end. I mean, by your count it's 15:1 without considering potential new abilities.
In any case, I'd agree that the limited set of abilities, and the delay should make it cheaper. But, again, I even see problems starting at a 5:1 ratio. Much less something like a 7:1. Basically to make these a viable option, you have to give enough points that, if it's not selected despite these extra points, then you have way too many HP potentially.
Basically this seems to be going a long way just to justify giving out higher numbers of rewards. Is that where you're going with this? Why not just lower the number of HP (as I've been doing)? You seem to dislike that option for some reason. Note that at, say, about 4HP an IRC session, this is still more than what the book suggests giving out. The book says about 6 HP per adventure. Looked at one way, the whole phase could be one adventure. From that POV, the PCs are earning about 10 times the suggested rate, conservatively.
Mike
On 6/17/2005 at 11:58pm, Christopher Weeks wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Mike Holmes wrote: Just to be clear: They have to choose what they are when they get them?
Again, clarifiying: they have to spend until they can't afford anything else, right?
You got both of those right. Though your point about leaving nothing left to buy at the end is well taken. I think tuning these issues would be easier if we had at least roughly proportional values to play with. If, for instance, We say that HPs cost two Goal Pursuit Points and AE cost ten and DSPs cost (what?) fifteen then I agree, we'd have to set a higher maximum roll-over than one. But it's just a matter of tuning.
If you put the total up to, say, 12 HP per session, then people would buy them, but a player disintrested in long-term advancement might just buy 12 HP. Which, again, is just too much.
But you don't mind uneven advancement. If the issue is keeping too many as a safety net of bumps, just rule that only two can be saved from time to time. Or award two real HPs for each session and use the system above, but replace the HPs with the same kind of skill points that new characters start with. That seems like an elegant solution.
Basically this seems to be going a long way just to justify giving out higher numbers of rewards. Is that where you're going with this?
Not at all. Less is absolutely fine!
You seem to dislike that option for some reason.
I never meant to imply that.
On 6/20/2005 at 4:23pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Christopher Weeks wrote: But you don't mind uneven advancement. If the issue is keeping too many as a safety net of bumps, just rule that only two can be saved from time to time. Or award two real HPs for each session and use the system above, but replace the HPs with the same kind of skill points that new characters start with. That seems like an elegant solution.Nooooo.
You're proposing a "fix" that I've railed against a lot before. The HP system in play is largely as good as it is, because each expenditure of a HP to bump should be seen as an ability not purchased.
This is the key balance to maintain - you have to have few enough of these things that you're always worried about whether or not to spend them on the current conflict, or save them for development. If you've played my game long enough, and not felt that tension, that's proof positive that I've had too many HP in play.
So can you see my problem more clearly now?
Mike
On 6/21/2005 at 11:19am, KingOfFarPoint wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
Nooooo.
I agree with Mike. The dual use of HP and the resulting reluctance of players to bump except when it matters to them is a good thing.
If you want to ramp up progress I feel it might be better to give out (say) half the HP but allow them to buy (say) twice as much.
On 6/21/2005 at 2:14pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Goals-based rewards--actual play.
KingOfFarPoint wrote: I agree with Mike. The dual use of HP and the resulting reluctance of players to bump except when it matters to them is a good thing.Well, it's more than that. If all you could do with them was bump, and you had few enough then you'd still know when it "matters" because players wouldn't bump on every contest to save them for the ones where it did "matter." It really to me has to do with the sense of sacrificing the character. You're not just giving up an opportunity to bump at another time - you're taking away a point that would theoretically otherwise go to advancement. That's the other reason to keep the points tight, so that the player demand for advancement never lags behind HP supply. So that every point spent this way is, in fact, a point that was otherwise destined to go towards buying something for the character.
That makes letting them go really a tough choice under any circumstances, making the player (in theory) really consider whether or not bumping in a particular case is merited.
There's an interesting distinct phenomenon that I've seen happen. Some players claim "I'll never use a HP to bump" or, sometimes, "I'll never use a HP to buy something for my character." These statements are always made at the beginning of the game, and they're always broken. Sometimes grudgingly like, "Well, I'll make an exception just this once." The more people play, the more they sense the pulls both ways, and the more the choice becomes fateful.
Again, I think that with too many HP, these choices become too easy.
If you want to ramp up progress I feel it might be better to give out (say) half the HP but allow them to buy (say) twice as much.I don't think that this is anyone's goal. I think the goal with more points was to, well, have more rewards given out. Or, rather, after asking Chris what his goals were for trying to maintain the higher rate, we no longer can see any goal.
What we're left with at this point are some interesting additional sorts of rewards. Which I'm intrigued by, but which are tangential to the basic needs of the game that I was trying to support. Basically, my goals are to discover a more mechanical and less arbitrary method of distributing HP than the current "session attendance" method that I'm using, and to perhaps leverage that to find ways to both give goals mechanical relevance, and to inform players that they should be proactive in seeking out their character's destiny whether that means success or failure in the short term.
Right now, I'm still not sure that the goals method that I have above is entirely a good idea - lots of players have philosophical problems with this sort of thing it seems. Which says to me that I should reconsider.
Mike