I was doing some thinking...
wouldn't any game that awards XP or any other kind of Points, has levels or any kind of "improvements" to the character be gamist in its nature?
Meaning if you need to Coax players to do something by offering a reward/penalty would it not be based not on Realism (sim) and not to further the story (Nar)

I was trying to see which of these fit best into my "ROLE-SHARING" game [RUN!]
Its a survival game but less about staying alive so much as about evasion and hiding.
The Character is played by everyone at the table. all Control different clashing aspects of the character.

I feel like this issue need to be resolved in my mind before I can settle on what direction I want to lean towards.
I don't feel like gamist is the way to go, But I need rewards I think In my game.

Any examples and input with be welcome!

Thanks

Brent

Hi Brent,

I was doing some thinking...
wouldn't any game that awards XP or any other kind of Points, has levels or any kind of "improvements" to the character be gamist in its nature?

We learn how to do new things all the time. In emulating life in another setting and allowing alter egos to grow and change we are simply reflecting our understanding of the real world back into a fictional setting, giving us plausible simulation.

Hi Brent,

In pure forge technical terms, as Chris says, no.

However, I imagine it's actually a set of priorities, like a third, second and first position. Whatever agenda is in first position is THE agenda. Whatever comes second and especially third, is the 'bitch' of the first agenda.

Further, you've probably played in plenty of games where a secondary or tertiary gamism was present, if you gave actual play accounts.

Also, is your concern really that play could go entirely to boardgame like play with no imaginative element at all?

In our lives we don't just wake up one morning and feel like we've gained +1 to our skill rolls.  It's usually through reflective thought that you realize you've gradually improved at something, or when you finally nail that one technique.  The change is so subtle that we don't seek self-improvement for the same reasons that your character would in RPGs, where the change is clearly noticeable as well as the rewards.  Therefore, in order to avoid pushing your mechanics to support the gamist agenda, I believe character progression should probably be subtle and the rewards largely intangible (e.g. it improves immersion, or grants a greater depth of interaction with the game-world).

Go read a novel and tell me again that a character in a game has no reason to seek out improvement.

Literary works are positively rife with characters who are undergoing development of their skills on a regular basis, in most cases because they have a driving motivation such as revenge, loss, or pride. Which has nothing to do with the concept of Step on Up.

I've seen plenty of my adult friends and family members acquire a skill because they have been exposed to a new hobby or process at work . . . not to mention taking classes!

I see absolutely no reason that mechanically experience points and the like have to be associated with a Gamist agenda. As a reward for pursuing emotional goals and addressing Premise, they make perfect sense for a character in Narrativist play. As a simulation of real life's ever-changing need for adaptability and the fact that we really do improve with experience, a Simulationist game can just as well use these mechanics.

What pushes Gamist over one of the others is how you word things, and the specific circumstances under which you give out rewards. If you wish to avoid Gamism, make rewards which also support emulation of a world, or have them be present when Characters address Premise. If you want to remove them for "kills" and "loot" that's probably also a step away from Gamist, but is not required IMO.

or have them be present when Characters address Premise.

Plenty of games grant "did you do something interesting/educational" points that have nothing to do with die rolls or being good at anything, they just have to do with things like "I have journeyed a long way, so in my travels I learned more" . . . not really very Gamist when you're just getting experience from taking part in the game and doing what your character should be doing. (Going on an adventure in the mountains, for example.)

This kind of experience point distribution goes back to what I said about books. Random Fantasy Novel 001: "They set up camp and ye olde grizzled veteran told the young farmer about how a weapon must be cared for . . ."

There may have been a misunderstanding in my meaning.
I have no doubt I am just poorly explaining what I meant.
Perhaps Gamist isn't the term I should use.
I will continue to "misuse it" for now but what I mean by gamist is this:
Making a decision based on benefits/drawbacks/rules rather than roleplaying a character - i.e. "I am going to use a spear to attack because it does the more damage than a sword"
the "gamist" part of this isn't the use of the spear, its the reason for choosing the spear. Does that makes sense?

If you offer a reward in whatever form players naturally look to that as a goal.
"If I want X then I need to Do Y"
That may NOT be the intention of the game but that it somehow promotes that way of thinking.
Intent really means nothing.
I sincerely think that TSR (D&D) didn't intend to put out a game that made players want to min-max
that the mechanics and rules just promote it. It takes a a conscious effort to avoid a "gamist" approach in that game.
My concern is that rewards do this as well.
No matter the intent of the game. As I said Intent really means nothing.
The rules have to support the intent for it to matter.
My question is, is there a way to avoid setting goals for the players by giving rewards?
How things happen in the real world (we naturally seek out improvement) isn't the issue.
its that providing rewards inadvertently causes us to seeks them IN GAME. 

I appreciate your responses. Hopefully this clears up my dilemma.
My grasp of gamism is clearly based on incorrect assumptions. (and possibly ill-founded distaste )

Go read a novel and tell me again that a character in a game has no reason to seek out improvement.

In our lives we don't just wake up one morning and feel like we've gained +1 to our skill rolls.

My question is, is there a way to avoid setting goals for the players by giving rewards?

What everyone is saying is that the reward mechanic itself is agenda neutral.

What you get rewarded for and how you can spend your reward  will push the mechanic towards one forge category or another , but not necessarily categorize your whole game, which presumably has other more significant mechanics as well.

But who cares what forge category is assigned to a mechanic or game after the fact?  You should be worrying about 'this is how I want my game to function and these are the mechanics that will accomplish that'.

I think that what Brent is trying to get at is that because of the nature of rewards, they will necessarily be the most significant mechanics.

The way to keep rewards from derailing your design is to only reward the type of play you want to encourage. That is, if player A successfully hides, good for him. However, if player A successfully acts out his role as the aspect of cowardice, he gets rewarded. Perhaps, you might even want to reward collaboration between players since they're all sharing the same head.

You can also make the rewards themselves highly abstracted to represent the fact that the characters are really character fragments. So, instead of skills increasing or what-have-you, the reward might be trait changes such that the aspect of cowardice doesn't have to act like a frightened child every time he sees the enemy but instead can be more calculating and 'mature' in their cowardice.

Making a decision based on benefits/drawbacks/rules rather than roleplaying a character - i.e. "I am going to use a spear to attack because it does the more damage than a sword"

SortableBadger wrote:
I think that what Brent is trying to get at is that because of the nature of rewards, they will necessarily be the most significant mechanics.

Callan wrote:
To me either way is nothing to do with roleplay. Say your character uses the spear - still nothing to do with roleplay.

There are large numbers of games which offer rewards on a fixed basis.

"You showed up and played the game. You get points."

Necromantis wrote:
Can someone tell me of a game that doesn't try to "train" players to behave a certain way and still uses rewards?
If I can get that under my belt then I feel like I can design a game that allows players to choose courses of actions based on the character they create and not some outside influence they they perceive as a tactical advantage.

I hope I don't come off as a jerk or as stupid. I truly feel like no one is understanding me.

Hi Brent,

Can someone tell me of a game that doesn't try to "train" players to behave a certain way and still uses rewards?
If I can get that under my belt then I feel like I can design a game that allows players to choose courses of actions based on the character they create and not some outside influence they they perceive as a tactical advantage.

If I can get that under my belt then I feel like I can design a game that allows players to choose courses of actions based on the character they create and not some outside influence they they perceive as a tactical advantage.

I really appreciate the help guys.
I will do some research with the suggestions
with Primetime adventures, Polaris and the riddle of steel.

This is the 2nd game I have ever tried to design.
Its in stark contrast to the other one I am designing which is a fantasy RPG that just gives me all the things I wanted/wanted fixed with D&D
It has turned out way different than d&d in the rules and mechanics but very similar to the objectives and setting etc. (at least how we play it. which is NOT dungeon crawling and endless killing sprees)
This game is almost opposite. and single character RSG set in the real world under unusual circumstances and thinking with an entirely different part of my brain. Having virtually no combat in a RPG? one that the group shares a character and take on the roles of the internal struggle as the character is put through the ringer. I see it as a challenge to get this right.

I will say that I still feel like most rewards work too much like bait. I do see light at the end of the tunnel though. apparently there are ways around this.
[hr][hr][hr]
I would like to add another quandary.
Narrativism - I like this concept the most. I just don't see how this is a game for everyone. For the record I don't mean a game that everyone will like. I mean a game for everyone who likes a good story and a game that supports it. let me explain.
I like to bowl. I suck at bowling. It's still fun.
I like a nar-based game. I suck at improvising stories. It is not fun.

this is what I think. As it happens I don't suffer from this affliction. I can improv well enough but there are people game with who just are not.
They like the idea but are just no good at it.
Someone told me that I just shouldn't play Nar with them. That doesn't appease me. I call that response the "WoW" approach. meaning "n00bs" or those who aren't "good" at the game shouldn't play it.  Like the asshats that play world of warcraft in this manner seem to think.
side note: "I pawn noobs" - is the same as saying -- I kill things that are easy to kill. which is pretty ironic in a way.

on a similar track as before with the gamist problem.
Can you provide examples of games that "fix" my problem here.
or notable ways around this problem as well.
Thanks and sorry this thread is all over the map.

Brent

LOVE the concept of your game. Let us all know of your progress as you go further, please? (Totally sympathize re: your WoW remarks. Bloody asshats.)

Re: your original post - I ran into a similar issue awhile back. Check out this article:
Experience Points - what's the point? Alternatives?

To quote that post:

You can't reward behaviour without changing behaviour.

Necromantis wrote:

In our lives we don't just wake up one morning and feel like we've gained +1 to our skill rolls.

yes, but if you knew you could wake up feeling like you had gained +1 to your skills - would you not seek out the means to that end?
Your suggestion is the most helpful though. Question is: how to give rewards subtly?
even then all your doing is hiding the rewards so the players can't chase it. It might work best though. Thanks.

Reward the players, not the characters.

By this I mean, reward things like good roleplaying, active participation in the game, etc. And make sure that the reward itself benefits what you want.

If you want to encourage roleplaying, or descriptive scenes, you could give out scene-stealing points, that can be spent to take over a scene narratively, but not mechanically.

This doesn't mean the character's don't develop mechanically - just that it's not used as a reward.