Topic: Reward Systems in LRP
Started by: Simon Marks
Started on: 6/21/2005
Board: RPG Theory
On 6/21/2005 at 12:13pm, Simon Marks wrote:
Reward Systems in LRP
Ok, after taking some time to think abouty it, I'm going to punt this one out to the field.
In Ron's article "GNS and other matters of roleplay theory", he said
Reward systems have been very deeply researched by me, but they await a rigorous discussion, as the baseline concepts of GNS, Stance, and the components of Currency must all be integrated. Some of the issues include:
What is being rewarded? Attendance? Role-playing per se? Player actions? Outcomes of conflicts? In-game moments?
Who is being rewarded, the player or the character?
Are reward systems necessary? At what scopes or time-frames of play are they more or less important?
If we are talking about character improvement, how does it proceed? Linearly or exponentially? If exponentially, is the exponent positive or negative?
Do changes in the values and aspects of the character affect the exchange rate of Currency itself?
Now, unfortunately I am unable to track down a concise dissection of reward systems (pointers would be nice), but we get into the rather unusual issue of L(a)RP reward systems.
A lot (and in some cases, almost all) of the action in LRP systems takes place outside the view of the 'refs' - or more specifically those who administer the reward system.
I am looking at the reward system generally, and in LRP in specifics because in LRP the 'organisers' - the Game Master in this system - is remote from the actual action of the players most of the time.
It is a problem that MUD's often had, if a Mod didn't see it - it may not have really happened.
It seems to me that there are quantifiably three types of reward possible for the character or player.
1) Efficency Rewards
Your character is better at manipulating the world (better spells, more money etc.)
2) Social Rewards
We state that you (the player) are cool and groovy
3) Involvement Rewards
Kickers and Bangs, this style of reward is us (the organisers) sending the world to your door.
These are the only reward systems that I can identify.
At this point, I suppose, I think a discussion about "Are these a good statement of what reward systems need to be in place" - as in, "What have I missed?"
And from there on the question arises "How can I (we) distribute the rewards both fairly and remotely?"
Simon Marks
Forge Reference Links:
On 6/21/2005 at 2:13pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
Re: Reward Systems in LRP
Simon Marks wrote: "Are these a good statement of what reward systems need to be in place" - as in, "What have I missed?"
Sounds like that about covers it. I don't know that all of them need to be in place, but they do cover the range of rewards.
Simon Marks wrote: And from there on the question arises "How can I (we) distribute the rewards both fairly and remotely?"
You can't. Or at least, you can't be sure that you will. Why not try putting it in the hands of the players? To get efficiency rewards, do X in order to get Y. Furnish proof of X, and here's your Y. Social rewards pretty much have to come organically, otherwise they're meaningless. Involvement rewards could also come from the players. You want a plotline about your character? Write up a summary, and hand it in.
That's just an idea. It might or might not work in a particular case, however. LARPs range tremendously in size (from, say, three people to thousands) and flavor (anything from pregen mystery games that take place in a small closed room to huge boffer-combat style games), so what works in one might not work in another.
On 6/21/2005 at 5:50pm, Albert of Feh wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
I have used peer-driven rewards to good effect. In a 15-person Kabuki-themed larp which I ran about a month ago, any player could nominate any other player present for an Honor reward or penalty based on recent actions or behavior. A quick vote was then taken and an Honor point given to the nominee if a majority of players witnessing the event ruled so.
This mechanic had the effect of pressuring players to have their characters act in an Honorable fashion (where the concept of 'Honor' was very particularly defined for the setting), encouraged players to do interesting and cool things in front of other players (in hopes of getting an Honor award), and required absolutely no GM oversight or participation.
Admittedly, it did nothing to ensure that things were at all 'fair', but that was actually a feature, not a bug, given the nature of Honor in this particular game. Also, the players involved are the type who almost reflexively choose not to exploit what they would see as an unfair loophole in the rules.
On 6/22/2005 at 12:44am, Noon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
There seems to be a bit of a preconception here, in that only the GM is interested in keeping the game fair.
Alberts example shows that everybody is interested in keeping the game fair.
I think rewards for remote LARPing should require a set number of witnesses (three or four). Not to police anyone or stop any cheating, but to ensure the players attempted contribution to the SIS will indeed be absorbed into the SIS. Any game reward is essentially about giving a reward for the right sort of contribution to the SIS. But beyond rewarding it, you need to make sure the act actually is seen to be absorbed. That takes witnesses.
On 6/22/2005 at 10:02am, Simon Marks wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Callan, thats a powerful idea - but one that runs counter to a Sim premise.
If a tree falls in the wood, then it makes no odds (in a sim sense) how many people see it - it still falls.
However, I am also aware that there is the Holy Grail of Sim/Gamism - where you can Game effectivly within a Sim premise (maybe the opposite of El Dorado?)
I'm very tempted to say that in Remote Reward systems that 'realistic rewards' for actions is impossible - because the person giving the reward isn't there when the action happens.
Example - in Call of Cuthulu, skill advancement may happen when you use a skill successfully. This happens within the view of the Referee - or if it doesn't then it implies a level of trust amongst the participants unlikely in any event/game with a large number of participants.
Which leads to 'an action is only valid when percieved by the Ref(s)' - what you are simply doing Callan is changing that to 'an action is only valid when percieved by other players'.
But one of the strengths of LRP is that I can walk in, move a glass, and walk out without the needing to tell anyone else. Maybe "It's important if we see it" is a retrograde step.
On 6/22/2005 at 5:25pm, Albert of Feh wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
In my experience, the most important, interesting, and powerful contributions that a given player makes to the SIS in a larp are his interactions with the other players. Sure, the player can move a glass when nobody's around, but why does anyone care? I can think of two possibilities:
1) The movement of a glass is a signal to another player. Chances are good that this will result in inter-player interaction potentially suitable for reward.
2) The movement of a glass is part of some larger puzzle or sequence of required actions that the player is required to follow. If anything is rewarded in this instance, it can be done on completion, which will again almost certainly involve interaction with some other player of GM.
Simon, my question to you is this: What things can a player do that are worth rewarding that do not at some level result in inter-player/GM interaction sufficient to address the issue of an appropriate reward?
I suppose you could go do things in total isolation from the other players to increase your skills ("I go to the gym a few towns away and lift weights for four hours"). I think that most players would probably contact a ref in that sort of situation. I'm a bit leery of a reward system that encourages players to essentially leave the SIS to increase their in-game effectiveness, no matter how 'realistic' it might be.
On 6/22/2005 at 5:45pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Albert, I'll offer an example of something that had a significant effect on a game that did not involve any interaction. This was in one of those boffer-combat fantasy LARPs. There was a particularly large and difficult-to-hide item that was wanted by just about everyone in the game, which vanished one night. A player had managed to steal it without being seen. Since he couldn't carry the item around with him, he actually buried the item in a chest in the middle of the woods. Then he never mentioned the item to anyone. People tore the place apart looking for it, and a small war broke out over it. Then, when someone was offering a huge reward for the item, he went back, dug it up, and collected his reward.
Sure, that's a bit more involved than moving a cup, but the fact that physical space and props often overlap the SIS in a LARP means that significant actions can occur without interaction.
On 6/22/2005 at 5:52pm, Albert of Feh wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Okay, granted that significant contributions that aren't directly interaction can occur.
From the perspective of remote rewards, though, the actual reward the player received (the money for 'finding' the item) was a result of the interaction that resulted from that isolated action.
On 6/22/2005 at 6:01pm, Harlequin wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
My experience of LARP systems has been that they massively divide into two categories: pregenerated characters, or not. The two groups are almost not even the same beast, in terms of the mechanics.
Paradoxically, one of the two finds it very easy to figure out what to reward and when. The other finds it easy to give meaningful rewards. Each one's weakness is the other's strength.
LARPs with pregenerated characters have several ways to reward behaviour. Most of these are goal-oriented rewards; succeed at doing X in game, and the reward is Y. In many cases Y is simply the continued play of the game or the character; I'm looking at Amor Fati here as an extreme example. But when the GM can see all the character sheets ahead of time and arrange things on them to suit this end, you don't need to rely on random (possibly self-interested) witnesses, the role of witnessing goals of people you're interacting with is implicit in your pariticpation in their characters' plots.
Unfortunately, many of these games are one-shots, and whether or not they are, they suffer from comparatively low player-investment in the characters, and from the degree to which everyone acknowledges that the GMs need to be able to set character effectiveness as they need to, in order for the structure to work. Thus although it's easy to find things to reward, effectiveness rewards are harder to implement and less meaningful. Likewise to a lesser degree for involvement rewards. Social rewards are pretty much all you've got, here, and they're the hardest of the three to structure robustly.
To fix this up, what you would need to work on is ways to make the rewards (of whatever type) meaningful and valued. Some settings and systems will lend themselves better to this than others.
On the flip side, LARPs with player-generated characters have it easy in providing meaningful effectiveness and involvement rewards, but have a hell of a time detecting when they're appropriate to bestow. This is where Callan's post, and some more formal methodologies (I've seen some things sort of akin to TSoY's Gift of Dice, for instance), come in. They all run up against the low-trust environment that is the average LARP; it's much, much harder to design for a low-trust environment. It can be done; in fact, one of my friends wrote his master's dissertation in Philosophy on "The role of detection in rule enforcement," generalizing it out to things like law but working primarily off his experience in designing LARP. But it adds a whole layer of additional requirements to the design.
If it is down this road that the problems lie, the first thing I'd suggest is to read over Tom's thesis linked above. It's mostly not about reward systems per se, but those could easily be considered a subset of what he's talking about. Then play around with various schemes according to his central premise, in that the observer must have a positive incentive to fulfill his function in the manner the designer needs, and a negative incentive to do otherwise. If the rule can't have this property, then it's not appropriate for a GM-poor LARP environment.
So I guess my point would be that this question, how do you do LARP reward systems, breaks into two questions depending on the kind of LARP. Which one did you have in mind, Simon?
- Eric
On 6/22/2005 at 9:03pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Good points, Albert and Eric.
Also, the size of the player group can affect this sort of thing.
On 6/23/2005 at 2:56am, Noon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Simon Marks wrote: Callan, thats a powerful idea - but one that runs counter to a Sim premise.
If a tree falls in the wood, then it makes no odds (in a sim sense) how many people see it - it still falls.
Hi Simon,
That's actually a big problem sim has...denial that your playing a game. Sure, the tree should fall in the woods. But if you talk to someone who didn't play in your game when that was said to happen, will he recount that event to you? No.
It didn't fall for him, because this is a game and games need witnesses.
I'm very tempted to say that in Remote Reward systems that 'realistic rewards' for actions is impossible - because the person giving the reward isn't there when the action happens.
Example - in Call of Cuthulu, skill advancement may happen when you use a skill successfully. This happens within the view of the Referee - or if it doesn't then it implies a level of trust amongst the participants unlikely in any event/game with a large number of participants.
Which leads to 'an action is only valid when percieved by the Ref(s)' - what you are simply doing Callan is changing that to 'an action is only valid when percieved by other players'.
Emphasis mine.
Remember the big model. It doesn't differentiate between player and GM...everyones a player. A GM is just a player with GM duties. In my example, the other witness players take on GM duties.
That said, that trust issue is a byproduct of trying to centralise GM duties in just a few, set individuals. If you tried to spread out GM duties, you'd soon find who wont forfil such duties and you could then weed them out. You can have that level of trust...it's just that you'll never get it unless you spread GM duties and weed out those who wont take them on. If that seems like a bad thing to do, check out the five geek fallacies, especially the 'Ostracizers Are Evil' one.
But one of the strengths of LRP is that I can walk in, move a glass, and walk out without the needing to tell anyone else. Maybe "It's important if we see it" is a retrograde step.
If the moved glass doesn't end up effecting the game at all, then it was a waste of energy to move it. If it does effect the game, it will have effect someone else in the game and thus someone will have witnessed its effect.
Moving a glass because it might effect the game, is worth doing. But you'd agree, if it doesn't end up being witnessed, it was a waste of energy to do so?
On 6/23/2005 at 5:34am, J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Noon wrote: If the moved glass doesn't end up effecting the game at all, then it was a waste of energy to move it. If it does effect the game, it will have effect someone else in the game and thus someone will have witnessed its effect.
Moving a glass because it might effect the game, is worth doing. But you'd agree, if it doesn't end up being witnessed, it was a waste of energy to do so?
Not necessarily so. For certain kinds of players (read: the "immersion" issue rears its head again here...) the moving of a glass might be an extension of simply being in character. It's an autotelic expression of a character habit. "I'm playing (or being) Michael, and he has a habit of rearranging small things. Thus it is pleasurable for me to act out that habit of his, witnesses or not."
But that's going towards directions not part of the original topic...
-Jiituomas
On 6/23/2005 at 10:58am, Simon Marks wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Harlequin wrote: On the flip side, LARPs with player-generated characters have it easy in providing meaningful effectiveness and involvement rewards, but have a hell of a time detecting when they're appropriate to bestow. This is where Callan's post, and some more formal methodologies (I've seen some things sort of akin to TSoY's Gift of Dice, for instance), come in. They all run up against the low-trust environment that is the average LARP; it's much, much harder to design for a low-trust environment. It can be done; in fact, one of my friends wrote his master's dissertation in Philosophy on "The role of detection in rule enforcement," generalizing it out to things like law but working primarily off his experience in designing LARP. But it adds a whole layer of additional requirements to the design.
If it is down this road that the problems lie, the first thing I'd suggest is to read over Tom's thesis linked above. It's mostly not about reward systems per se, but those could easily be considered a subset of what he's talking about. Then play around with various schemes according to his central premise, in that the observer must have a positive incentive to fulfill his function in the manner the designer needs, and a negative incentive to do otherwise. If the rule can't have this property, then it's not appropriate for a GM-poor LARP environment.
So I guess my point would be that this question, how do you do LARP reward systems, breaks into two questions depending on the kind of LARP. Which one did you have in mind, Simon?
- Eric
The fact that I am about to start reading Tom's Thesis should indicate that it's the latter.
Detection of apropriate times to bestow rewards is what I am looking at - I'll read Tom's thesis and come back later.
Callan - The biggest single issue with the 'weeding out' of people who can't be trusted to distribute rewards is finding them.
Afterall, who decides if they can't be trusted? Me?
There is only one of me, and if (for example) there are 300-3,000 players in a single event then I can't ever hope to find them...
So, I would need people to watch the players and remove rights to attend/distribute rewards from other participants - we may as well call them Referees at that point....
Simon
On 6/23/2005 at 8:41pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Re: Reward Systems in LRP
Simon Marks wrote: It seems to me that there are quantifiably three types of reward possible for the character or player.
1) Efficency Rewards
Your character is better at manipulating the world (better spells, more money etc.)
2) Social Rewards
We state that you (the player) are cool and groovy
3) Involvement Rewards
Kickers and Bangs, this style of reward is us (the organisers) sending the world to your door.
These are the only reward systems that I can identify.
I'm not sure whether the word "quantifiably" in this section has some meaning that impacts what I'm about to say, but I don't think these are the only kinds of rewards a player can get.
[meandering story]
I recently discovered that a game called Spider Solitaire exists on one of the computers in the other room. It took me a couple tries to figure out the object of the game and how the rules worked, but now when I'm out there by myself or not interacting with others I will often play the game. I'm not really killing time. I'm playing it because I enjoy the challenge. No one watches me play, no one cares that I play (except my wife, who wishes I'd do something more constructive), and no one knows whether I play the game well. I still enjoy it.
The reward that I get from play in Spider Solitaire is that it allows me to meet my own personal gamist agendum, to prove to myself that I can beat this game. That is, I play it because it is fun, in one of the ways I have fun.
[/meandering story]
When we designed Multiverser, we didn't include a reward system. I'm not sure we even thought about it. We devised a rather simulationist method for characters to improve themselves through practice and use of their abilities, and having done that we saw no other practical need for experience points or similar rewards.
People play the game because they have fun playing it.
In fact, because the game doesn't have a rewards system built into it, players individually can drift the game in the direction they want to go--gamist, simulationist, narrativist--to a significant degree. They are rewarded by being able to do the kinds of things they want to do in a game. The fun of play is its own reward.
I've long maintained that a "reward system" either supports this or opposes it. That is, you can give a player a reward for having fun, and it's icing on the cake, or you can give a player a reward for doing what you want him to do instead of having fun, and it's "a stupid game". Note that the same reward system will be icing for some and stupid for others, because people play for different kinds of fun (creative agendum). Thus the introduction of a reward system inherently defines the kind of fun you want people to have in this game, and so limits your player base to those who want that kind of fun.
I was inclined to think that "having fun" is social, but since you can do it all alone, that's really stretching the concept of "social". Indeed, in dysfunctional gaming groups, some of the players are having fun doing what they want to do over the objections of others, so it would seem pretty clearly to be a separate concept.
--M. J. Young
On 6/23/2005 at 9:22pm, Simon Marks wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Hi MJ,
It seems to me, that you enjoy play for a reason - and this, being a theory thread, is us trying to work out what that reason is.
You say
When we designed Multiverser, we didn't include a reward system. I'm not sure we even thought about it. We devised a rather simulationist method for characters to improve themselves through practice and use of their abilities, and having done that we saw no other practical need for experience points or similar rewards.
Emphasis mine
According to my interpretation of Ron's article - this is a reward system.
Could you game run without any system in place for this? I have yet to come across a game that attempts to support Player Created Characters with Campaign play and has no identifiable Reward System.
Which leads to an alternate question "Is a Reward System needed", but thats not the purpose of the this thread - which I think I can clarify even further;
How can you identify the rewards that are due to players in LRP, when the actions that would gain these rewards are remote from the people distributing the rewards.
So far, the best suggestion has been "give the players the ability to distribute rewards" - and I think I like it.
Simon
On 6/23/2005 at 9:49pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
So how about this... at the end of the session, hold a "wrap party", everyone writes the name of someone to receive an award, and why, on a piece of paper, and drops it in a hat... then take them out and read them.
On 6/24/2005 at 3:49am, Noon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote: Not necessarily so. For certain kinds of players (read: the "immersion" issue rears its head again here...) the moving of a glass might be an extension of simply being in character. It's an autotelic expression of a character habit. "I'm playing (or being) Michael, and he has a habit of rearranging small things. Thus it is pleasurable for me to act out that habit of his, witnesses or not."
It's possible to play a single person game, during a group game. That doesn't mean that the single player game links up with the other group game because its done at the same time.
On 6/24/2005 at 3:57am, Noon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Simon Marks wrote: Callan - The biggest single issue with the 'weeding out' of people who can't be trusted to distribute rewards is finding them.
Afterall, who decides if they can't be trusted? Me?
There is only one of me, and if (for example) there are 300-3,000 players in a single event then I can't ever hope to find them...
So, I would need people to watch the players and remove rights to attend/distribute rewards from other participants - we may as well call them Referees at that point....
Simon
It's funny how you can't find them, but I imagine come reward giving time, they quickly find you. Think about how you can use that behaviour.
As for deciding who can be trusted? No, it's about finding out who is interested in the same activity as you. Surely you know what you like, and that if someone else has very different interests, it's not going to work out?
On 6/26/2005 at 6:13pm, J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Noon wrote: It's possible to play a single person game, during a group game. That doesn't mean that the single player game links up with the other group game because its done at the same time.
According to very common views within the Nordic cliques, the intensity of an individual player's personal interpretation of a game translates into a stronger experience for everyone. The basic idea is that the personal commitment/immersion of each feeds the same phenomenon in others and also reflects back at the originators, creating a feedback loop that reinforces the game experiences of all participants. That way the unobserved movements of a glass do become a part of the group game. Iif one believes a "group game" exists, that is. I personally refuse to acknowledge anything beyond personal interpretations of a joint experience. The players never experience the "same" game" as their fellows.) But again, this diverges from the original thread point.
On 6/27/2005 at 12:29am, Noon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
The moved glass affected one player (the one who moved it) and that player then went on to affect the group game.
Despite the causality, it's outside the group game like drinking a mug of strong coffee would be. The ongoing effects of both can effect the group game, but aren't doing so directly themselves.
On 6/27/2005 at 1:28pm, J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Noon wrote: The ongoing effects of both can effect the group game, but aren't doing so directly themselves.
If the coffee was drunk /within/ the game's reality (SIS/diegesis/whatever), then they are equivocal as far as influence goes, yes. Which shifts us nicely ack to original topic: since those are affecting the game's reality, what makes them any less rewardable than saving the princess or entertaining guests at court? As all elements that happen in-game essentially contribute, rewarding the parts that are visible is actually quite silly.
It's similar to the unpleasant fact that the people who are given prominent characters are most often the ones rewarded by both game masters and peer votes simply due to higher visibility. That's why we'v shifted away from normal reward systems, including "solve the plot, feel good" rewards.
-Jiituomas
On 6/27/2005 at 3:40pm, Simon Marks wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote: That's why we'v shifted away from normal reward systems, including "solve the plot, feel good" rewards.
I take it that you are refering to the Turku school of LRP then?
I only assume this because of the location you give...
Anyhow, care to elaborate on the reward systems you use?
On 6/27/2005 at 4:35pm, J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Simon Marks wrote: I take it that you are refering to the Turku school of LRP then? I only assume this because of the location you give.
Nope. I'm very much against the hyper-individualistic larp ideals the Turku school espoused while it was active, even though some of my ideals are occasionally alike (and may stem from theirs.)
Anyhow, care to elaborate on the reward systems you use?
The approach is usually refered to as "experientialism", because the core idea is that the participation of a game should be so rewarding in itself that no additional reward system need be imposed upon it. The "otherness" of the game should suffice.
So ideally every game is a communal (but not collective) autotelic experience that rewards itself. This naturally moves such larps away from the more traditional games, as both mechanics and far-reaching plotlines (as opposed to personal ones) tend to be disruptive to experientialism. Note that exceptions even within this ideal exist, and I'm only representing one small design clique in this regard.
For example, one of my most successful larps ever ("Waiting for Lucifer") consisted of nothing but 20 characters spending 24 hours in a remote location. There was some potential for conflict in the character material, but every player was aware of the fact that there would be no new GM-introduced plotlines during the game. So the sole rewards came from whatever the players came up with. I'd call it the "simple joy of playing the game" reward system. Would I have introduced any external systems to this, the game would not have worked as it was intended.
(I'll elaborate if needed. The thread should probably be split, if that happens.)
-Jiituomas
On 6/28/2005 at 1:53am, Noon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:Noon wrote: The ongoing effects of both can effect the group game, but aren't doing so directly themselves.
If the coffee was drunk /within/ the game's reality (SIS/diegesis/whatever), then they are equivocal as far as influence goes, yes. Which shifts us nicely ack to original topic: since those are affecting the game's reality, what makes them any less rewardable than saving the princess or entertaining guests at court?
Because you reward people for behaviour you would like to see happen again. Reward messing around with a glass by yourself and people will do that, more and more.
Do you want to reward players to spend more time by themselves?
On 6/28/2005 at 5:01am, J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Noon wrote: Because you reward people for behaviour you would like to see happen again. Reward messing around with a glass by yourself and people will do that, more and more. Do you want to reward players to spend more time by themselves?
I want to reward the intensity in which players participate in the game, not their actions within it. If that means occasional solitude or some in-game activity that influences only them, then yes, I want to make those participatory forms rewarding as well.
The trick how this can be accomlplished in a balanced manner is that I include everything I want to happen for certain in the game into that participatory intensity. So by writing good characters with enough interaction potential, I make sure the game contains enough activity to be enjoyable by doing-aspected players and pre-designated events will eventually proceed where I need them. Basically, exploration of the facets of your character and the game environment should be prioritized as the principal (self)rewarding factors, and everything else included in those two as secondary traits that happen if the players really concentrate on living the character and SIS to the fullest.
It must be noted, though, that I have the advantage of working with a large player base that is quite familiar with the ideology of sublimating what Forgeans call G and N tendencies into a heightened enjoyment of S playing. Thus what works here may not be easy elsewhere. Nor is it necessarily desirable: larps that have completely different reward and game presence systems can be as enjoyable (or even more) or as artistic (or even more) as the style towards which I strive. (For examples of similar use of subsumation, but into G or N rewarding, see Tan 2003 and Koljonen 2004)
-Jiituomas
On 7/1/2005 at 2:47am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Quoting me, Simon Marks wrote: You sayWhen we designed Multiverser, we didn't include a reward system. I'm not sure we even thought about it. We devised a rather simulationist method for characters to improve themselves through practice and use of their abilities, and having done that we saw no other practical need for experience points or similar rewards.
Emphasis mine
According to my interpretation of Ron's article - this is a reward system.
There is a big difference between a character skill improvement system and a reward system. The problem you're having is that in most games the character skill improvements are the rewards--but these are very gamist reward concepts. In a simulationist game, a player is rewarded by being given the opportunity to explore new and different imaginings. In a narrativist game, a player is rewarded by being more empowered to address the premise.
I know that the Multiverser skill improvement system is not a reward mechanism, for several reasons.
• At least half of my players ignore it completely. They run their characters like real people in a real world, without any reference to whether time off for training would make them a more potent character, or whether doing this will improve their ability at some skill. Their characters improve when I decide that they've been using particular skills a lot and really should be better at them by now--not as a reward, but as an accurate portrayal of the character.• Eero has in another thread pointed to the fact that games which enable characters to power up by practicing encourage players to practice rather than adventure. Multiverser has this aspect going in spades, really. You can find a way to withdraw from any sort of adventure and spend months practicing, and become better. If the skill improvement system is the reward system, then that's what the system rewards--but that's not what players do, generally. They are rewarded not by building powerful characters in their downtime, but by creating interesting adventures or stories around them.
Really, skill improvements are only a reward if the system is designed primarily to pose challenges for the characters to overcome in a manner which enables the player to show off his tactical skills--that is, gamist systems. In simulationist games, skill improvements are not a reward but a means of accurately representing character growth. In narrativist games, skill improvements are not a a reward but a means of enhancing characterization.
--M. J. Young
On 7/1/2005 at 10:05am, Simon Marks wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
M. J. Young wrote: Really, skill improvements are only a reward if the system is designed primarily to pose challenges for the characters to overcome in a manner which enables the player to show off his tactical skills--that is, gamist systems. In simulationist games, skill improvements are not a reward but a means of accurately representing character growth. In narrativist games, skill improvements are not a a reward but a means of enhancing characterization.
My understanding of the article was that anything that increased the Players ability to interact and effect the SIS could be considered a reward.
These are (obviously) not the only type of reward - but all such increases are a reward.
(Which is why xp for attendance was odd to me, interacting with SIS is a reward - so surely no more is needed?)
*edit Spulling...*
On 7/2/2005 at 12:28am, Noon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:Noon wrote: Because you reward people for behaviour you would like to see happen again. Reward messing around with a glass by yourself and people will do that, more and more. Do you want to reward players to spend more time by themselves?
I want to reward the intensity in which players participate in the game, not their actions within it. If that means occasional solitude or some in-game activity that influences only them, then yes, I want to make those participatory forms rewarding as well.
The trick how this can be accomlplished in a balanced manner is that I include everything I want to happen for certain in the game into that participatory intensity.
Emphasis mine.
What do you mean by balance? Balanced between players? Balance between players so nobody is put ahead of anyone else? I think you may be asking for some method of judging an activity so it's balanced. But if a tree falls in the woods and nobody sees it, can you judge how well it fell? It requires a witness, if it is to be judged.
I'm really seeing a simulationist issue here, where it's presumed that if the tree falls, it falls regardless of whether it is witnessed and is part of the game. And thus, if it's part of the game, there must be some way to judge it.
If were finding difficulty in judging it in a balanced way, it could be a design challenge. Or more fundimentally, it could be that it "is part of the game" is a false assumption. And that's why were having trouble judging, because were trying to judge an assumed part of the group game, which is absent.
On 7/2/2005 at 5:52am, J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
Noon wrote: What do you mean by balance? Balanced between players? Balance between players so nobody is put ahead of anyone else? I think you may be asking for some method of judging an activity so it's balanced. But if a tree falls in the woods and nobody sees it, can you judge how well it fell? It requires a witness, if it is to be judged.
No, I mean a balance of potential that is created in advance. The idea that all players will have a similar amount of things to do during the game. I usually try to make them match on all levels, meaning that I'll give every character some social plot material, a personal quirk (which brings the glass back to this equation, and some chance to shine in front of other players for a moment. Yet all these are created so that they serve the experiential nature of the game, and are essentially secondary /tools/ that aid in making the game's otherness rewarding.
It isn't easy to write a lot of characters to even roughly equal potential, but it can be done. A harder trick, however, is to convince the players that there are no central characters: far too many players, even very experienced Sim-oriented ones, think visibility equals importance equals status. No amount of game design will convince them that a solo act can be as rewarding in an autotelic sense as an epic, public one. That has to be done by training the players to accept a new perspective, by broadening the concept of reward for them (permanently or for that larp only).
Thus in one sense you are absolutely correct, Callan. The glass that has no direct bearing on events can not be judged in itself to be an important contribution that should be rewarded. But by perspective changes, it is possible to make it rewarding in itself in such a manner that its influence will contribute to a better, more rewarding, game for everyone. And through that, eliminate mechanical forms of rewarding players or judging them beyond their ability to enjoy the larp for what it is.
-Jiituomas
On 7/2/2005 at 8:24am, Noon wrote:
RE: Reward Systems in LRP
J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote: Thus in one sense you are absolutely correct, Callan. The glass that has no direct bearing on events can not be judged in itself to be an important contribution that should be rewarded. But by perspective changes, it is possible to make it rewarding in itself in such a manner that its influence will contribute to a better, more rewarding, game for everyone. And through that, eliminate mechanical forms of rewarding players or judging them beyond their ability to enjoy the larp for what it is.
I agree with that. I think for the glass example and similar LARP activities, such a perspective change is the best idea rather than mechanical rewards.