Hey all, I am looking for possible "patches" or "house rules" to make a less than narrativist game (D&D 3E for example) more so. For example one thing I had read was to set a single number of experience points to give - thus limiting the need to be "gamey." What I would love would be ideas that would give the players good reason to take authorial and director stance through a mechanic. Examples of this might be set bonuses to dice roles for roleplaying (ala Sorcerer). These are some of my ideas, but I would love to hear more.

-Shane

Unfortunately going with a "set xp" rule doesn't give players any incentive to do anything. I once awarded based solely on roleplaying, but since I did awards at the end of the session along the normal lines of D&D, players had a hard time recognizing what was considered "good" roleplaying.

My recommendations:
•If characters are created with goals, passions, or other traits, along the lines of spiritual attributes from RoS, or Hero Wars, you can give awards based on characters striving for those goals. Hence, "Loyalty and Honor" can provide xp whenever the player demonstrates it.
•Reward at the end of the scene, and give a sentence about what they did to earn it. If it just kicks too much ass, give it to them right away.
•You may want to give the players a "pool" of say, 500 xp each, that they can award to other players at anytime for good roleplaying. This also encourages folks.

The hardest thing you will have is trying to get them to use director stance. If you can get one player to do it right, regularly, other folks will get the idea.

Chris

Bankuei, I think giving XP for good role-playing at the end of a session can work. However, you have to tell your players why they get a certain number of XP. With D&D3E, Buddha Nature's example, I would do the following:

Give every player between 0 and 100*Level bonus XP for roleplaying after each session. Announce clearly who gets how much, and why. This will ensure that players (a) know what is and is not considered good role-playing, (b) encourage them to roleplay effectively. (In all this 'good roleplaying' should be read as 'playing a character in a consistent and interesting way- I do not wish to imply that non-Narrative play-styles are unworthy.)

However, don't expect to get much further than letting people behave more 'in character'. They won't suddenly take Director-stance... in fact, you'll encourage Actor-stance more than anything else, at the cost of Pawn-stance.

Bankuei wrote:
Unfortunately going with a "set xp" rule doesn't give players any incentive to do anything. I once awarded based solely on roleplaying, but since I did awards at the end of the session along the normal lines of D&D, players had a hard time recognizing what was considered "good" roleplaying.

Bankuei wrote:
•If characters are created with goals, passions, or other traits, along the lines of spiritual attributes from RoS, or Hero Wars, you can give awards based on characters striving for those goals. Hence, "Loyalty and Honor" can provide xp whenever the player demonstrates it.

Bankuei wrote:
•Reward at the end of the scene, and give a sentence about what they did to earn it. If it just kicks too much ass, give it to them right away.

Bankuei wrote:
•You may want to give the players a "pool" of say, 500 xp each, that they can award to other players at anytime for good roleplaying. This also encourages folks.

Lord Daemon wrote: Give every player between 0 and 100*Level bonus XP for roleplaying after each session. Announce clearly who gets how much, and why. This will ensure that players (a) know what is and is not considered good role-playing, (b) encourage them to roleplay effectively. (In all this 'good roleplaying' should be read as 'playing a character in a consistent and interesting way- I do not wish to imply that non-Narrative play-styles are unworthy.)

Bankuei, I think giving XP for good role-playing at the end of a session can work. However, you have to tell your players why they get a certain number of XP.

The way I see it is that if they know that they are only going to get a set amount of points, they aren't going to focus so much on getting more and more points by killing off more and more monsters. Instead (hopefully) they will focus more on their characters and the story.

Buddha Nature wrote: A fear in this though is that only the proactive players are really going to do well in this regard - they will be perfectly in character and get xp up the wazoo, while the reactive player might get left by the wayside, especially if it is all done at the end of the session.

Now something that did come to mind was what if you gave the xp as soon as you saw the good roleplaying, up to and including allowing level advancement in game. Would that be something players would move towards.

Specifically in D&D3E the only trouble spot I would see would be with your standard wizard becuase they are supposed to have to study up new spells - though maybe a page magically shows up in a tome they have? It would be fine for everyone else since they all just get bonuses and Sorcerers could just "make up" a new spell and Clerics would be"gifted by their god" with a new spell.

Bankuei wrote: But this also means that the players won't be getting direct reinforced feedback until the end of the session, whereas immediate payoff allows players to correct and alter their playing style much faster. It's the same thing as walking with your eyes closed, the longer you have them closed, the less times you can correct your direction

Bankuei wrote:
In this case, just tell them they get no xp for fighting, but xp for action. The difference is, no xp for fighting orcs, killing dragons, but xp for kicking barrels down on them(creative), causing a landslide to hit the dragon, then slashing its throat(cinematic), etc. Be sure to make the difference clear to them.

Bankuei wrote:
As far as the passions/emotions/belief rules, one of my previous designs, Persona, used a very simple rule; Have each player write down 3 beliefs that are most important to their character. "More than steel, more than mana, the Gods rule our world", "Healing the body is but the first step, the goal is healing the soul", "No greater transgression than undeath", etc.
Simply award the players anytime they fufill or demonstrate a belief.

Bankuei wrote:
Hero Wars treats passions or personality traits as their own stats that give bonuses to actions, but in this case, anytime your Paladin shows his "Fearless in the face of duty" aspect by charging the oncoming dragon to save the villagers, pour on the points.

Bankuei wrote:
I'd say with the encouraging director stance, give the players both bonuses to succeed and xp. Do let them know that using it isn't about tactical advantage, as much as what would be cool(at least if you're looking for an action story).

Bankuei wrote:
Regarding getting reactive players to hop more into the game...check out scene framing and bangs in various threads here on the Forge, you'll get a lot of good ideas.

Lord Daemon wrote:
When walking with your eyes closed, you need to change your direction often. But once you understand what makes good roleplaying, you don't have to change direction very often anymore. So your metaphore is a bit misleading: walking with your eyes closed needs continuous adjustment, whereas good roleplaying needs only to be set in the right direction once - as it were. So I don't think you need all that many occasions to talk about roleplaying; once after every session should be more than enough.

Lord Daemon wrote:
Furthermore, giving XP detracts from the game. I prefer meta-game actions such as that taking place before or after a session.

Shane,

Reading through this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be balking at the idea of rewarding the players right then and there during play. I can't understand this at all. It's really what you're looking for, as long as we're talking about reward systems.

I think the idea of setting a standard amount of XPs is quite wrong - sure, standardize the amount per character (ie even split), but f'God'sake dont' say, "Just because you play, you get XPs." That communicates the idea that the content of play is irrelevant.

Also, I'm not contributing much, because you're talking about patch rules and I don't think in terms of patch rules.

The big question you're asking also seem a little off to me.

You see, your concerns seem to be more about Director stance and in-character stuff, perhaps a little Author stance regarding tactics, and definitely a lot more about Drama resolution (ie not "rolling to hit" to see whether the soup cauldron turns over, just saying it does, etc). These are fine things, but in and of themselves, they aren't "Narrativism." They are techniques/standards of play that permit shared narration, shared input, shared power, and that sort of thing.

So I think you should review what you're really asking for. If you want Narrativist play, that's a pretty big deal, and includes a wide variety of possible standards & practics. If you want a specific set of standards and practices of play, that's another issue.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Reading through this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be balking at the idea of rewarding the players right then and there during play. I can't understand this at all. It's really what you're looking for, as long as we're talking about reward systems.

Ron Edwards wrote:
I think the idea of setting a standard amount of XPs is quite wrong - sure, standardize the amount per character (ie even split), but f'God'sake dont' say, "Just because you play, you get XPs." That communicates the idea that the content of play is irrelevant.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Also, I'm not contributing much, because you're talking about patch rules and I don't think in terms of patch rules.

Ron Edwards wrote:
The big question you're asking also seem a little off to me.

You see, your concerns seem to be more about Director stance and in-character stuff, perhaps a little Author stance regarding tactics, and definitely a lot more about Drama resolution (ie not "rolling to hit" to see whether the soup cauldron turns over, just saying it does, etc). These are fine things, but in and of themselves, they aren't "Narrativism." They are techniques/standards of play that permit shared narration, shared input, shared power, and that sort of thing.

So I think you should review what you're really asking for. If you want Narrativist play, that's a pretty big deal, and includes a wide variety of possible standards & practics. If you want a specific set of standards and practices of play, that's another issue.

Buddha Nature wrote: To be honest though my players are going to need constant encouragement. =)

Buddha Nature wrote: When you say "detracts from the game" do you mean giving it as they finish the awardable action screws with the flow of the action or do you mean just in general the logistics of it puts a stop in the flow of the game as a whole and as such should wait until the end of the session?

I like meta-game stuff as well, but what I think we are looking into are in-game ways (whether they be game or meta-game mechanics) to encourage Director stance and Author stance and Narrativist play as a whole. If this is true, then if you are trying to drift your sim/gam game towards N, I think you need to be constantly encouraging it.

Buddha Nature wrote: [I guess what I am really looking for are two things:

1) Additional mechanics to promote and encourage Director and Author stance

2) Suggestions on drifting Sim/Gam games toward Nar - possibly using mechanics from 1.

Here's my suggestions: Most of these are relative to DnD, but could be used for other things.

Unfortunatly, true Simulationists or Gamists can foil just about any system. I think an important part is talking to everyone about it, the 'Social Contract' side. Also, I think this works better than trying to imply your prefrences through a style of play and handing out rewards in a specific way.
This way you avoid gamists becoming proactive because it gives better results.

One would be to say you are gonna keep track of all XP. Only tell players when they level up. This way you can just do a story arc and when you get to a stopping point, level everyone up.
Maybe have people who's roleplaying lagged a bit need one extra scene to level up. (Basicly, do a one-shot scene). This requires you to give feed back during play(Hey,that was cool), so people can make the connection.

Maybe talk to players who who seem to be reactive("Instead of asking me if there's a pitchfork, just go for one and I'll tell you if your wrong"). Additionally, you could reward good stances with additional rewards. Maybe those barrels you knocked over contain fine wine and one of them is still intact. You wouldn't have noticed that if you hadn't knocked them over.

Another key thing is Never Tell Anyone Any Numbers. Just ask them to roll and explain the results.

Giving out XP at all rewards Gamism. Even if you try to reward players for role-playing really well, for struggling with their Premise(s) instead of the typical hack & slash, the "reward" is that they become better able to hack & slash in future sessions.

I've been trying to figure a good workaround to this problem for d20 games. Easiest I can figure is to play only one-shot adventures. Tell the players up front that their characters will not be used for any other adventures, so they might as well focus on their Premise and the plot that develops. Or the characters could be used in future adventures, but would not gain levels.

I have to disagree with the XP comment. XP is a reward for those who like to build their characters that way. I don't think it is bad to reward Author/Director Stance and good Actor stance with XP. You are getting them to "diversify" and if it is what you want to see in the game then you should reward it in any way that will motivate the players.

Beyond this, if "they become better able to hack & slash in future sessions" what happens if there is less and less h&s as time goes by? Or on the other hand, what if (as in hardcoremoose's Sorcerer mini-sup Charnel Gods (coming soon)) the players are _so_ powerful that it is pretty much worthless to do the h&s stuff? All of which is GM planning and setting.

You are just crippling yourself if you just do one shots. I spoke with a couple of my players about this... One shots lead to "whatever" playing--players doing "whatever" due to complete non-attachement/connection to the characters. This I mean with d20 and gamist/situationist tending players.

I have been thinking alot about the whole "GM-ing a system I don't like because _all_ my players want to play it" thing. For me it comes down to doing it "my way." I will build a set of "house rules" which are all additional (not changing anything hard-coded in the system) and optional for use byt the players. They will totally reward the kind of playing I would like to see, but still give out "standard" awards of XP.

-Shane

I imagine players rewarded with XP for good instances of Narrativist play would learn to play like that. But I still think XP are tied up with Gamism. This example is a little ridiculous, but it's like trying to train a lion to be less aggressive by giving him scraps of human meat as a reward. The lion learns to act that way when you're around, but its goal remains eating humans. If you reward players with better skills or abilities, how can you really break them of the tendency toward power-gaming?

Playing one-shots or turning off XP or levels is definitely a flawed workaround, and I haven't tested the idea much yet. It makes sense to have characters grow and develop their skills, and theoretically it would be better for players to become more attached to characters by running through many sessions with them.

Anyhow, playing one-shot games shouldn't be the end of the world, even for players who enjoy long campaigns. For example, the fickle GM I've been playing Star Wars with lately keeps requiring us to create new characters every few sessions to be at the right level for some new villain he created, or for a pre-fab adventure he bought. I'd like to keep exploring my original character, but when I have to create a new character, it doesn't make me play less seriously. How often do you have to create new characters when playing in other GM's campaigns? Do you invest less interest in your new characters?

Buddha Nature wrote: Beyond this, if "they become better able to hack & slash in future sessions" what happens if there is less and less h&s as time goes by? Or on the other hand, what if (as in hardcoremoose's Sorcerer mini-sup Charnel Gods (coming soon)) the players are _so_ powerful that it is pretty much worthless to do the h&s stuff? All of which is GM planning and setting.

Buddha Nature wrote: I spoke with a couple of my players about this... One shots lead to "whatever" playing--players doing "whatever" due to complete non-attachement/connection to the characters. This I mean with d20 and gamist/situationist tending players.

I think what it comes down to is making the best of a difficult situation. If you are going to GM a bunch of players who play in a manner which is quite divergant from your own I would say create a system that rewards them for playing in the manner you like, but doesn't punish them for not. And vice versa - if you are in a game which is being run differently than how you like, play how you like, but still within the confines. Its okay to be the verbose one in the group of "I attack the orc" players.

In this instance I would hope Pavlov's theories are right - reward the desired behavior whenever you see it and hopefully they pick it up and it becomes second nature.

-Shane