In "Narrativist games and "winning"? Ron says:

I see reward systems as either being unified (perhaps with many interrelated parts, perhaps hierarchical parts) or broken - either the parts don't work well together or the whole thing fails to apply to tons of expected play.

I disagree with that. 

I don't believe that reward systems must be unified in order to be functional.

I think you CAN have an advancement reward system that runs on one level, and a social reward system that runs on another, both of them independent of the other, and both of them functional.  That has been how all of the DnD games I have ever played have worked.

As the play shifts between tactical and social scenes, the two different reward systems switch off.  The parts don't NEED to work well together, because they're not operating at the same time.  The "whole thing" applies to tons of expected play, because it switches mode to handle the play.

Trying to make one reward system that handles all situations seems odd.

Yep.  That's what you responded, alright.

Were you looking for any type of suggestions or ideas?  Or are you just hoping somebody will leap up to disagree with you so that you can have the fun of defending your position?

Vax, what do you mean by "unified"? (I guess I should also ask Ron what he meant as well.)

I agree that a game can have multiple systems that that do multiple things. However, if the combined effect of all those seperate systems is a focused... umm, drive or driection, then I would consider that to be "unified."

On the flip side, if those seperate systems were pulling the player in multiple directions, I have a hard time seeing how that would reliably result in functional play.

So why exactly does this warrent its own thread?

By that definition, Tim, the reward system in the DnD games I have played have not been unified.

The "Kill Things And Take Their Stuff" system, which I'll call "tactical reward," pushes the game in one direction, and the "Talk in character and occasionally roll dice" system, which I'll call "social reward", pushes it in another.  It results in functional play all the time.  This is because the group's desires shift with time.  There's a rhythm to it... an ebb and flow.  Kill stuff, Talk, Kill stuff, Talk, Kill stuff, kill stuff, Talk, talk...  Almost like playing two different games with the same characters.  If you don't like the one kind of play, you can sit back during those scenes, confident that your preferred kind of play will be coming along shortly.  Most players, however, like both, and shift back and forth with the game, comfortably, and the whole thing is entirely functional.

The only time I've ever seen it get disfunctional is when a player insists on converting the kind of scene he doesn't like into the kind of scene he likes.

Tony and Justin, I believe that what I'm saying here is important, as it has implications that extend rather broadly throughout the body of Forge theory; as Ron has said, reward is the center of system, and system is the engine of exploration.  I'm not intending to get into the implications now, though; if the thread gets ignored, that's fine.    My intention is merely to get this idea out, in a thread of its own, where it can be referenced independently of the thread where it was spawned.

I plan on using this point, that reward systems need not be unified in order to be functional, in other points, and it's posted here so that people who disagree with the point can do so without mucking up other topics in discussing it.  That's how Ron wants it handled, as I understand it.

How big is your group, Vaxalon?

I ask because one stumbling block in my learning 'forge theory' was that some of my most rewarding play has been one on one with three different close friends (at different times, obviously) who Drift with me extremely effectively. I think in general Drift is much more viable in games for 2 players (whether player and GM or some other split of duties).

So maybe the way to develop your point is to figure out what makes your group's drift functional. Just used to each other? Do you have cues? Are there actually some people more into one part and some more into the other who tolerate the other stuff OK?

In general I'm more optimistic about managed drift at least for small groups than some, but I'd add that I think we're still at the point where we'll learn more from sticking to CA-focused design, at least for a couple more years.

I have had DnD games with as few as two players, and as many as eight.  The same rhythm seems to crop up irrespective of the size of the group.

It starts to happen after about three or four sessions, sometimes more., with a new group.

I used to think it was just me.

Over the past few weeks I have been "guest DMing" in someone else's group, to playtest a D20 adventure I'm writing.  I sat in with them for one session, then started DMing the session after that... and I saw that they were doing the exact same thing.  I was able to hop in and continue the rhythm with no problems.

Your use of the word "drift" is an interesting one.  The provisional glossary states that it means "Changing from one Creative Agenda to another, or from the lack of shared Creative Agenda to a specific one, during play, typically through changing the System. In observational terms, often marked by openly deciding to ignore or alter the use of a given rule."  This seems to imply an evolution, something that happens TO the system rather than something that is part of the system.

I don't see that what we were doing was drift.  It wasn't something that was planned or laid out ahead of time, but you could set it out as a rule if you wanted to.  "Every other scene, switch from improvisational mode to tactical mode."  The rhythmic shifts were part of the system.

Hello,

Fred, I think you might consider the issue hierarchically.

An engine, for instance, makes use of something burning. We could talk about rates of oxidation and energy release for the burning alone.

However, this burning is contained in an apparatus which has pistons, affected by pressures from the gas released by the burning. The pistons go in and out.* We could talk about how fast this action goes and how it ultimately makes the wheels go around.

Finally, we could talk about the speed of the car, maybe relative to its weight and aerodynamic body shape.

So the question is, are you talking about true shifts in direction or about processes within a process? To answer this properly (and I want to make it clear that I am not saying you don't have such shifts), you must consider play in terms of reward cycles. E.g., characters levelling up, and people coming back to play after such a cycle has occurred, and lots of related stuff.

Best,
Ron

* Hey! A mechanic explained to me how a Trabi's engine works a little while ago! Any former Eastern bloc folks who want to congratulate me about this, get in touch by PM. ... (pause) ... Well, all right, not that impressive, but I was proud of myself.

Instead of hierarchical, the model that Fred's proposing sounds like it's cyclical or organic, with no "phase" or subsystem truly dominant--each one feeds and supports the other. The talking provides interest for the fighting, and the fighting provides interest for the talking. The only meta-purpose is sustaining the system.

Indeed.

There is no hierarchy between the reward systems at work.  They don't interact with each other, and neither is subservient to the other.  The narrative flow is, of course, in common between the two, as well as elements like setting and tone, but the two reward systems really don't interact strongly.

Am I the only person who has encountered this?  I'd be surprised if I were.

It seems to me that what Fred is describing is exactly what is going on in the functional D&D game I describe at Gaming With Minatures. However, I'm unsure whether that is really a seperated reward system. While in the 'kill stuff' phase we're getting our rewards from the system but when playing in the 'talk' phase we're simply doing something we enjoy - there's no reward system backing us up. What this means is that we ever divert from the kill-talk-kill cycle and into a long phase of talk-talk-talk we're stuffed, the reward system isn't giving us anything any more. I'd also note that the 'social reward' Fred is talking about doesn't stop when the 'kill stuff' phase begins, you're still getting whoops and cheers for doing cool and/or successful stuff.

It seems to me that this is the brokeness than Ron is refering to.

Fred, that's a little different from what I wrote. I was suggesting that the systems do interact with each other. Consider a tight feedback loop of (e.g.) success at facing a challenge -> opportunity to face a new challenge. The arrow here may include rewards such as leveling up, which gives you a panoply of new tools for addressing bigger and more complex challenges.

A cyclical or organic relationship would be something like

success meeting a challenge -> opportunity to talk, and
talking -> opportunity to face a new challange

where neither of the two phases is clearly dominant. In this mode the arrows probably don't contain special rewards--just getting to the next phase is reward in itself.

One complication is that this cycle could be taking place within a larger cycle, and the overall reward of the larger cycle would likely be seen as dominant. (It's now a hierarchical system.)

In your last post you seems to be saying that the two reward cycles work in parallel with minimal interaction. You might want to consider whether there is a larger cycle containing both parallel cycles.

Hello,

Elliot wrote,

One complication is that this cycle could be taking place within a larger cycle, and the overall reward of the larger cycle would likely be seen as dominant. (It's now a hierarchical system.)

I've got a session coming up on saturday night.  In between everything else, I'll see if I can take concise enough notes to get all that information out.

Fred, pending your actual play report, I wonder if you've ever experimented with true hybrid gaming?

That is, using one game for certain types of scenes, using a completely different game for other types of scenes. I remember reading about a group who used Universalis like this. It was sort of a meta-layer that handled all the in-between stuff and scene framing, but they would switch to different games depending on the type of scene.

I don't remember the specific games they used, but it would be like using Trollbabe for scenes outside combat, but switching to TROS for physical fights.

I haven't actually done it, but it's one of the aims of a game I'm designing (on and off) tentatively called "Guildmaster".

ewilen wrote: In your last post you seems to be saying that the two reward cycles work in parallel with minimal interaction. You might want to consider whether there is a larger cycle containing both parallel cycles.

Hmm, this thread has got me thinking.

At the end of the day, aren't all rewards about social recognition of one's contribution to the group's play experience?

Anyway, I've been muddling over a concept for a reward system for incoherent/multi-focus gaming. Its basis is the Academy Awards. Here's how it works:

Grab some 3"x5" cards. Before your game session, get all of the participants together and hand out some cards and pens. Each person writes down an award category, basically similar to Academy Awards categories if applied to gaming. Simple stuff: Best portrayal of a..., Funniest ad-lib, Best tactical thinking in a fight, Best true to character portrayal, Most sportsmanlike conduct in the face of in-game adversity, whatever. The categories that people come up with will undoubtedly tell you something about each player's preferred style of play, as well as the group's collective preferences.

The object here is to come up with more categories than participants. If the game has a GM, be sure to include categories that the GM can be nominated for as well. The Academy Awards are for more than just actors, after all. When you've got enough categories, pull in the cards, shuffle them face down or throw them in a hat or bowl and put them aside.

Play your regular session, but leave time at the end of the night for your awards ceremony. Optionally, after the game is over for the evening, have another round of category creation, and throw those cards in with the other ones. Give eveybody some scraps of paper. You'll need them for voting.

Okay. Draw out three or so category cards. You don't need to draw a a number of cards equal to the players. This doesn't have to be a happy, smiley, feel-good kind of thing- go ahead and be cut throat if you feel like it.

Flip a card and reveal the category. Go around the table and nominate players for that category. You can nominate yourself and you can skip nominating anyone if you'd like.
Try to give an example when you nominate someone of why you think they deserve the award for that category.

Take a secret ballot vote. Everbody writes the name of the nominee they're voting for, folds the slip, and passes it to the person flipping the category cards ( probably the GM). You can either count the votes and reveal the winner immediately, or you can leave the slips and move on to revealing the next category card. Whatever floats yor boat.

Eventually, the group will have gone through the reveal category-nominate-vote process for all of the cards. The winners in each category will have been announced, perhaps appropriate speeches ( "Thanks Mom") will have been given. Now it is time for tangible rewards.

Start with the winner of the first category. They get to suggest what they want as a reward. Go around the table, and allow each other participant to suggest a reward in turn. Again, players may skip if they wish. Once everyone has gotten a chance to suggest a reward, there is a reward vote, again hidden ballot. Count up the votes. That is the reward that the winner of the category gets as a prize. The suggested rewards can be anything-xps, levels, other in game goodies, the right to pick the next game played, setting suggestions, free beer, whatever. Afterall, the group as a whole is going to decide what they feel the most appropriate reward is by majority vote (please no hanging chads!). Repeat the process for the remaining category winners.

This system isn't meant to be entirely fair, but is meant to help a group who may be playing with very different personal goals communicate with one another. It may also help drift a particular game to a play style that is more agreeable to the participants, and give the various players a better idea of what each one finds important and what individual likes and dislikes are present. Also, it helps to act as a sort of de-briefing for a game session.

As I said, it isn't particularly meant for a coherent/monofocussed game. Those games probably already have a reward system in place that follows the logic of the game. In games that potentially have a polyfocus set up ( like my favs, the oWoD series), it may help to clarify playstyle for everyone involved.

Thoughts?

komradebob wrote:
At the end of the day, aren't all rewards about social recognition of one's contribution to the group's play experience?

When it comes right down to it, there are two rewards in a roleplaying game; I'll call them intrinsic and the extrinsic.

Intrinsic rewards are rewards where the game gives the player greater authority, usually in the form of a more capable character.  This is the kind of reward we're all used to; XP, advancement, what have you.

Extrinsic rewards are rewards the participants give each other on a social level.  Approbation, accolades, I've even heard of monetary rewards.

The reward system can also have intrinsic and/or extrinsic penalties.

You can tie intrinsic and extrinsic rewards together; for example, in Toon, if anyone says or does something that makes all the other players laugh, then their characters are considered "Boggled" and the acting player basically gets a free action.

Hello,

From The Provisional Glossary:

Reward System
(a) The personal and social gratification derived from role-playing, a feature of Creative Agenda. (b) In-game changes, usually to a player-character, a feature of System and Character. (c) As a subset to (b), improvement to one or more of the character?s Components. Typically, the term refers to how (a) is facilitated by (b).

I think this comes around to my point, which is that a) and b) in the provisional glossary need not be as closely tied as Forge theory seems to say they are.  The two systems run as much independent of each other as not.  In fact, character advancement can IMPEDE social gratification!

I can see, however, that it will take AP examples to drive the point home, so I'll leave it alone until I can post there.

Sighhhh ...

No, no, let's do it here after all. Before we go into Actual Play on different pages.

What you may not be seeing is that, as defined ...

... if (b) fails to function as a component of (a), then (b) is not part of a Reward System at all. At best it's a bit of added Color. Much more likely, it's a distraction, an impediment, and a strong potential source of both incoherent and dysfunctional play.

Thus your point that a given character-improvement mechanism may not be part of (and in fact can screw up) a social-gratification process is absolutely correct.

And if, indeed, the screwing-up is happening, then my call is that this entire instance of play is, itself, screwed up. And no "reward system" can be identified. Which is to say, very simply, that we would be looking at a horrible example of people not having fun.

Best,
Ron