So I'm working on mockups in the studio last night and it suddenly dawns on me that I can't think of any method of rewards (which I'm defining as "positive reinforcement for behavior in line with the design goals of the system") that aren't gamist in nature. Every method of giving kudos to a player for doing something "right" takes the form of granting dice bonuses or adding to a resource pool or having some mechanical benefit at some particular action. Then again, I could have just been too sleepy to remember some innovative little reward system.

I'm not saying this is bad, but I hope I'm not missing out on some alternative. So, are there narrativist rewards? Simulationist rewards?

The main rewards that Sim-oriented players like to get out of their games are different kinds of exploratory detail, I think.

focus on exploration of setting: secrets of the world, hidden facts, a new understanding of how magic or the gods or high technology or whatever functions, knowledge of plots, etc.

focus on exploration of character: new background information, deepened personality template, potentially even cool new powers (are you interested in them for the way they develop the character, or just for asskicking purposes? this isn't an either/or of course, but I know players who are primarily or even totally interested in the former rather than the latter).

focus on exploration of color (?): oh, this is really what it means to be a vampire, this is what the vampire-y stuff is really all about, I can really feel it now, damn it's cool

Big honkin' metaplots allow the setting-type exploratory rewards to feel more meaningful for some people in some ways because they are shared among a much larger community. On the other hand, they're also slower, stifle exploration of setting in individual games to the degree that groups feel compelled to make whatever they do fit with the metaplot, etc.

So these are mostly player rewards I'm talking about here, the kinds of things that I think really butter the (vanilla) Sim-oriented player's bread. How do you translate these into in-game rewards?

- Experience ties into traits which flesh out your character

- As you gain experience your lore skills or resources increase so it's easier to find things out about the world

- You have a hierarchical dispensation of information (color codes in Paranoia, levels in mage's guild or conspiratorial group, etc.) so that increasing your status in the hierarchy gives you access to more and weirder kinds of exploration.

That's just to start the brainstorm, may others come and do better.

My quick question is: why are character rewards that have mechanical benefit automatically "gamist" in nature? I think there's a false dichotomy inherent in your question.

It's a mistake to think that rewards that increase character effectiveness are gamist rewards. Increased effectiveness can support any of the Creative Agendas.

Instead, the Creative Agenda a reward supports is defined by 1) what the rewards are given for, and 2) what kind of effectiveness is increased.

In Riddile of Steel, for example, rewards are given for addressing Premise (Story Now!). These are Spiritual Attribute points which increase effectiveness by providing bonus dice in situations that address issues chosen by the player. These points can also be later cashed in for increased combat skills.

Likewise, every major sim design includes increasing character effectiveness as a reward for following the simulationist agenda.

And like Sean said, there are other kinds of rewards. In gamist play they may include the moments the player can celebrate having met a challenge, in sim developing the exploration, in narativism, getting to address your premise in a satisfying way. These are examples and not definitive or exhaustive.

Daniel, I want to respond to some of the points in your post separately. I know this kind of response is normally frowned upon, but I don't think I've taken anything out of context.

gobi wrote: "positive reinforcement for behavior in line with the design goals of the system"

gobi wrote: Every method of giving kudos to a player for doing something "right" takes the form of granting dice bonuses or adding to a resource pool or having some mechanical benefit at some particular action. Then again, I could have just been too sleepy to remember some innovative little reward system.

gobi wrote: So, are there narrativist rewards? Simulationist rewards?

Hi there,

Nah, keep it all in this thread for now. This is very interesting.

Quick point: past discussions have all generated the point that reward systems are always for the real people, with character-stuff being a means to that end.

Best,
Ron

Here's a non-Gamist possibility for you. This is taken from my own game, because this very discussion came up not too long ago. As it happens, possibly because of gamist-by-habit and possibly for good reasons (I'm not sure), we've steered away from going "pure" Nar/SimSett.-reward and hybridized with some "Gam-reward for Nar-actions" structure, in the current edit. That may change, though, if this discussion really bears fruit.

The activity that is rewarded is pretty much exactly "address Premise." Your character sheet bears some "hard unanswered questions" which have been asked at character creation or during play. To bring one up, and answer it where you've never answered it before, or answer it differently than you've answered it before, triggers the reward mechanism.

When talking about reward structure, James Brown ('Blankshield' around here) suggested that we tie it to the SimSetting component of the design - the idea of character connectedness with the world that has been built. And suggested implementing this as so: When you trigger the reward, you get to do one of two things. Take an "important person or thing" [there is a sharp mechanical distinction from unimportant ones, in the system in question], and associate yourself with it. Claim ownership, if you will, bringing it under increased player control rather than GM ownership. Or, promote an unimportant person or thing over which you already have control, to important status, which means (among other things) that incorporating it into a scene is a system-relevant act.

An example of the former would be to take a defeated foe (already important) and make him into an ally. An example of the latter would be to make your family sword into The Family Sword of the KushiKushi Clan, an object worthy of telling stories about in its own right.

Does this actually affect character effectiveness in a Gamist sense? No. Does this affect one's ability to address Premise? Sort of. Does it increase one's level of connection to The Dream, particularly to the setting (which is our Sim focus)? You bet.

Now, possibly through timidity, we've tuned this somewhat - now, triggering the reward mechanism can increase your scores (still appropriate, since they're Conviction scores and the trigger is resolution of ethical/moral issues) OR increase your Relationship score, either to an existing important person/object/place, or to a currently unimportant one (which makes it important). The relationship score has also become an effectiveness measure, which at the time of the original proposal was not the case - then the reward was purely involvement, no effectiveness component at all.

Even rephrasing it like that helps clarify things, for me, and I think the effectiveness change brought in by the Conviction increase is still a good idea because (a) catering to a certain mild timidity (effectiveness rewards are traditional) isn't all bad, a dash of vanilla can accentuate spice, and (b) it does flow very nicely from the Nar trigger to the effectiveness-reward in this case.

But the original version, with player-involvement and player-authority changes only and no effectiveness component, would be an example, I think. Yes?

- Eric

I'll add this to what Ron said about the real people: you cannot prevent the people actually playing from using a reward system in a gamist manner if they choose to do so. Now, you also can't prevent them from using it in a Sim or Nar manner if they choose to.

So I guess in a fit of over-sensitivity to language I'd rephrase the first question as: 1) What game systems have character effectiveness rewards that are well-suited to Nar and Sim agendas?

Gordon

Heh, I was just arguing about this the other day.

Effectiveness determines success or failure; it determines whether you, the player, have your intent validated.

Rewards that modify effectiveness, and that can be used as the player wishes for any given situation (for example: tokens that allow you to succeed), allow the player to decide how important his intent is in the given situation. Thus, serving Nar because priority of events is pretty damn important for any kind of drama. For example, let's say you the player are building up to a climax with your character. Simply handing over the events of the climax to a randomizer (most often), is in my opinion tantamount to flipping a coin to see if your creative agenda is acceptable.

Anyway, as has been stated already by most of the posters, it's how it is used that counts. For all their differences, Nar and Gam have a lot of similarities, and allowing a player to prioritize individual situations can serve either agenda. Even if one is doing it for dramatic flow, and the other for risk/gain management (or whatever).

cruciel wrote:
Effectiveness determines success or failure; it determines whether you, the player, have your intent validated.

Reading Marhault's post I had a strange feeling of deja vous--so much of what he said, including his chosen example, sounds like my article here at The Forge, Applied Theory. Advancement and rewards are treated separately in that article, coherent and incoherent rewards systems are discussed, and ideas for rewarding gamist, narrativist, and simulationist play are all there.

It also addresses the idea that play is its own reward, and that reward systems are only supportive or conflicting ultimately.

I'm interested in new ideas in this area.

--M. J. Young

I think new ideas need to come from dropping implicit assumptions. For example, M.J. Young's article discusses just what is meant by the term ‘effective’ and Ron Edwards points out that rewards are always w.r.t. the player, not the character, so ‘you get to choose the pizza tonight’ is a reward.

In addition, some reward systems may become punishment systems for some people. For example, I find that GURPS or White Wolf experience usually slowly ruin my character concept, since limitation are—to me—a crucial part of the character. So beyond addressing GNS mode, there is a lot of purely personal preference as well.

In fact, I've recently been thinking about making the reward system a part of the character. In other words, next to the character's strength, spirtual attributes, magic sphere and personal demon's maiden name there is line describing how reward/advancement will be handled for this character. There's obviously a lot of pitfalls lurking there and I'm not yet convinced it's possible to do effectively, but it makes for a thought to mull over…

SR
—

From the top:

Harlequin: The system you describe is an aswer to both questions. I like the way you tie setting elements to the character. That is definitely a Sim-oriented reward. I would say, just to quibble that it can have a Gamist impact as well, using your example of the defeated foe becoming an ally with ties to the character, that ally will than be part of the character's overall effectiveness for certain types of challenges. This is, however, still a side-effect of the Sim reward. My question to you: is your game published or otherwise available? I'm curious about some of the specific mechanics.

Amber Diceless uses a system vaguely like that of Harlequins, wherein characters tie setting elements to themselves. These elements are then considered part of the character, thereby both increasing both Character Effectiveness, and the character's ability to explore the setting.

Gordon: Your revision of the question is fine with me, but my question may not have been Daniel's to begin with. Also, yeah, all rewards doled out by the game system or moderator are necessarily player rewards, because the character is not playing the game.

Alan: I think a lot of Sim-oriented games have slow character improvement because they are trying to Sim "reality," wherein improving a skill or attribute to a degree which would really effect anything to a degree to be worthy of mechanical alteration takes years and years of practice. To answer your main question, No, at least not in my opinion. Living the Dream, Story Now, and Stepping On Up can all be their own reward. That is, after all, why we play.

M.J.: Sorry, I didn't mean to step on your toes. Upon reading your post, I went back to reread the article. I didn't realize at the time how much of what I said came (pretty directly) from there. Applied Theory was instrumental in helping me understand GNS, at least insofar as I do understand it. I want to acknowledge and apologize for my unconscious plagiarism, and give M.J. credit for his work. Everyone should go read the article, M.J. puts it better than I do.
I was actually hoping you would mention Multiverser, M.J. It is, to my understanding, without any effectiveness reward system, right? Does it include any form of overt, mechanic reinforced form of reward, or is it a "play is it's own reward" system?

I was working on a system a year ago that had no effectiveness advancement rewards. Instead, one of the forms of currency in the game could be used (at great cost) to increase stats, or get new ones.

My thinking at the time (which simply states my personal opinions) was that you should be able to create the character about how you want it, instead of starting play very weak and working into a cencept.

In game rewards came in the form of "investment points". The basic idea is that you state goals for your character (or goals that you, the player, have for your character) and work out with the GM how much investment is required for them to happen.

Here's an example of both in action:

Luke Skywalker is created with the goal of "Wants to join the rebellion". He has some adventures, getting investment points after each. Finally, he has enough investment point to reach his goal. The GM then crafts an adventure that will bring Luke to his goal (rescuing the princess and taking her back to the rebel base).

Later, the heroes are in on a plan to destroy the Death Star. The player has been thinking about Luke's scores, and decides to increase his piloting ability. To do this, he gets the OK of the GM and comes up with a story about how he used to bullseye wamprats in beggars canyon back home. He spends currency to make this all happen, and voila: he's a better pilot and gunner.

I'm not sure which agenda this "investment points" style of reward really serves--but it is intended to further character development in a non-mechanical way. You could also have goals that are less specific (e.g. Will find true love). It basically becomes a way for players to direct the plot of part of the story, which seems like it could serve either Sim:Char or Narrative play.

Hi Jay,

This advancement system reminds me of Theatrix's advancement system - you had to accumulate a certain number of plot points worth of adventure beofer you were eleigable for the big character changing adventure. I think that adding a stated goal is a good innovation.

BTW - when I mentioned effectiveness increases, I was referring to all changes made to a character record that give the player more power to add material to the shared fantasy. This includes skills, attributes, and many other things.

Stuff all over the place here.

Marhault: It's still under development, and in fact has recently ramped up to more aggressive development including a PhpBB forum of its own. I'm just working on getting the basic writeup chunks into readable form rather than note form, prior to releasing the website address here and in general. Stay tuned, and I'll make sure to PM you when I do put out the word - I am looking for people interested in contributing to the discussion phase.

Two of the other three "thought threads" I see in this thread, I would say are actually facets of the same thing. Stated goals, whether with fixed or unfixed requirements to achieve, and mode-of-advancement as a character statistic, are actually both things (and, come to that, they're the two things) I played around with before settling where I am now. Stated goals leaves things a little more open, while a fixed set of options in a mode-of-advancement stat pins things down and thereby does a better job of prompting, but I'd say they're two sides of the same coin.

And the prompting thing won out, for me, because it felt very powerful - just not right for the game I'm working on now, benched until a later design. I was quite quickly able to identify some very clear patterns of "advancement" from relevant literature, and classify those into a set of options. If I recall correctly, the list was roughly:

- Learning To Fly - Character begins mechanically weak or talent-reliant, typically also physically young. Development is in effectiveness/skill, and quite rapid, especially in quick increments ("training montages") under a mentor figure. Has the potential to be great in his chosen field.
- Old Dog's Tricks - Character begins as a worldly, skillful, and usually jaded figure. Development is emotional and moral in nature, and quite slow in coming. Effectiveness remains roughly constant, though often the "effective effectiveness" goes up gradually with increases in willingness/determination/moral fibre.
- Own Worst Enemy - Character begins with considerable power and high effectiveness, which always has strings of some kind attached to it, the innate moral corrosion of power if nothing else. "Advancement" is a matter of either retaining the power but resisting the corrosive effects or drawbacks, or else surrendering the power in favour of a more ordinary life; this can be modeled mechanically in several interesting ways.
- Pawn of the World - Character begins with low to medium effectiveness and a comparatively low degree of connectedness to the world. Development occurs as the character is bound more deeply to institutions and events, and increases involvement rather than power. Effectiveness increases are rare but very abrupt, and tied to external factors - gifts, discoveries, supernatural allies, and the like.

I think there may have been some others, I'd have to find my notes. In any event, using that sort of taxonomy to prompt and drive the selection of more specific goals for the advancement process strikes me as quite powerful.

With reference to this thread, it also presents the interesting situation that it can address more than one playing style with the reward system, such that one player is developing effectiveness-wise in a potentially Gamist manner, and another player is developing moral-wise in a more SimChar or Nar manner, at the same table. Backed by some strong mechanics for both, this might be very interesting to see.

- Eric

Alan wrote:

cruciel wrote: Effectiveness determines success or failure; it determines whether you, the player, have your intent validated.

In some games, a player may win a roll but decide his character fails.

I think effectiveness determines the player's ability to add to the shared fantasy.

Marhault wrote: M.J.: Sorry, I didn't mean to step on your toes. Upon reading your post, I went back to reread the article. I didn't realize at the time how much of what I said came (pretty directly) from there. Applied Theory was instrumental in helping me understand GNS, at least insofar as I do understand it.

He then wrote: I was actually hoping you would mention Multiverser, M.J. It is, to my understanding, without any effectiveness reward system, right? Does it include any form of overt, mechanic reinforced form of reward, or is it a "play is it's own reward" system?

I think one hidden assumption is still that ‘more effective to the player’ means ‘more effective as a character’. I can think of character concepts where the character should be getting weaker with time. I don't see how an inside-the-SIS currency can handle such generality. If anybody does see, please tell, because I do like the concept.

SR
—

Rob:

Maybe Torchbearer's reward system can give you some insight into that.

In Torchbearer, one is rewarded with a resource, Fuel, for using a symbolic language (that the players construct collaboratively at the beginning of the game) in interesting ways, and for nothing else.

A player can use Fuel to increase his odds of deciding how a conflict turns out; certain manipulations will affect the result even if he doesn't win the privilege to decide. Straight player effectiveness.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: Rob:

Maybe Torchbearer's reward system can give you some insight into that.