Forum > Articles

Incentivizing Roleplaying Behavior: A Bad Idea (Mark Brantingham)

<< < (3/13) > >>

S'mon:
I disagree strongly with the OP. The GM certainly should be incentivising behaviour that contributes to the enjoyment of the group as a whole, himself included. Typically this means behaviour in accord with the agreed premise of the game. The player may want to play a surly basketweaver who has to be dragged into every adventure, can't fight and never contributes to discussions, but I see nothing wrong in discouraging this concept and encouraging more desirable ones. Even lone wolf type characters, a common concept in fiction, are generally best restricted to solo campaigns. You may think your brooding loner PC is cool and awesome but IME they are generally not much fun for the other players.

crkrueger:

--- Quote from: S'mon;933033 ---I disagree strongly with the OP. The GM certainly should be incentivising behaviour that contributes to the enjoyment of the group as a whole, himself included. Typically this means behaviour in accord with the agreed premise of the game. The player may want to play a surly basketweaver who has to be dragged into every adventure, can't fight and never contributes to discussions, but I see nothing wrong in discouraging this concept and encouraging more desirable ones. Even lone wolf type characters, a common concept in fiction, are generally best restricted to solo campaigns. You may think your brooding loner PC is cool and awesome but IME they are generally not much fun for the other players.
--- End quote ---

So fixing social issues at the table through mechanics?  Bad idea.  

You may as well go back to the Forge idea of training the filthy Gamist plebs how to properly "roleplay" like their Narrativist betters (ie. from the OOC 3rd person authorial stance) through reward mechanics.  Even better, you want the GM be sole judge of such things so we can have a helping of "Play the GM, not the game" nonsense going on.

Jesus Wept.  A well-played setting with well-roleplayed characters will provide all the carrots and sticks that are needed, in setting, where they belong.

You may think your attempts at behavior engineering is cool and awesome but IME they are generally not much fun for anyone except the useless shitbag who attempts them. ;)

S'mon:

--- Quote from: CRKrueger;933046 ---So fixing social issues at the table through mechanics?  Bad idea.  

--- End quote ---

"XP for gold" or "XP for killing monsters" or "XP for overcoming challenges" is not "fixing social issues at the table through mechanics" or "behavior engineering" by "useless shitbag". That's really dumb. XP as a reward mechanism works great IME and I see no reason to change it.

Bedrockbrendan:
XP as a reward mechanism for what the game focuses on is fine by me. As long as it also kind of makes some sense and isn't totally divorced from the reality of the world you are in. So XP for gold, or XP for killing monsters, that is fine IMO. Lately I tend to prefer more general approaches that emphasize the passage of time and doing important things. But most XP systems, except ones that based on actually using the skill that improves or something, seem to fall apart under scrutiny. XP for killing monsters makes sense, if your XP is making you better at killing monsters. But if you getting better at using computers or weaving a basket as a result, it makes considerably less sense. Even then though, things like training rules to level or gain Xp are enough of a handwave for me.

crkrueger:
True Brendan, they all have a downside, even a pure time system has its issues if The Caves of Chaos deliver the same experience as Queen of the Demonweb Pits.

A time one though, seems to have the least OOC incentive, and arguably the least amount of handwavium to rationalize, which always seems to be a good idea.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version