Hey, no problem.  I'm just kicking around the idea based on this thread and I thought you might have already kicked it down the road further.

What I'm trying to hone in on is the concept of rewarding other behavior, but not in the way that, say, D&D does by suggesting role-play or story, and not in some meta-gamey way, for the various reasons you mention (and Warthur brought up in this thread).

I'm looking for a more generic approach - like xp for use of skill, etc.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou heard me.

That big theory thing that occasionally gets waved about, yammering about rewards?

D&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

At base, you find the challenging encounter.  You kick it's ever-lovin' ass.  You get the Xp and the loot.  You use those to become more proficient at...

What's that?  Kicking ass?  

That's the stuff.

Not only that, but in D&D, you become more proficient in kicking ass in a way that is unique and differentiated to suit you - meaning that while we're all in the same rat race, we're doing it in in different ways, which means that we don't feel like we're stepping on each other's toes, but instead encourage us to work together.

So, the next time I hear someone call the whole "rewards thing" a flakey piece of theory garble, I may feel the need to ask them if they don't like D&D.

Just, so y'all know.

I agree, but I think people often oversimplify the impact of mechanical reward systems.

D&D gives you mechanical rewards for killing things and taking their stuff; it doesn't give you so much (mechanically) for kick-ass playing your character or for resolving problems without combat (technically, it can, but often in a less formalized way... and the XP you get generally make you better at combat than at whatever it was you actually did).

I think a lot of System Does Matter people make the mistake of thinking that players are primarily motivated by mechanical rewards. In my experience that's often not the case and very rarely the whole story.

Being overly-focused on what the game rewards (or what percentage of the rules cover combat, or whatever), I think ignores the obvious: in a functional group the actual players, at the table, decide what the game is about and how it's about it. They choose to use the rules in a way that suites them.

When I play D&D I'm rarely focused on mechanical rewards to the point of often forgetting to record XP I've earned. I'm way, way, way more focused on the pleasures of interacting with my friends, exploring the DM's world, and so-on.

D&D doesn't give me an mechanical rewards for this stuff, but that's never stopped me or the folks I've gamed with from enjoying those aspects of the game.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, actually, that's exactly what they're about. No conflict = no plot.

Seanchai

Some degree of conflict is probably desirable in all games; I'd say that conflict is necessary but not always sufficient for solid scenario design. And there are whole categories of game themes where the identifiable conflict is parsley instead of the main course.

I think 2001, a Space Odyssey, is an example of a reasonably game-able story that is less about conflict than about other themes (yes, they fight Hal, but if anyone thinks that 2001 is primarily about Man v. Machine or Ape v. Ape, I guess we have no common ground for discussion of the movie).

A more game-related example would be scenes where the focus is on playing a character rather than overcoming an obstacle (e.g. shopping expeditions). While I suppose someone could claim that there *is* conflict in a shopping expedition (Man v. Department Store? Man v. His Savings?) that renders the term "conflict" tautological and suddenly much less useful or interesting.

Bottom Line: Conflict is an important element, but I see a lot of discussion that seems to reduce the discussion of "what's important" in RPG's to a pretty  simplistic equation that I don't think holds up across the full spectrum of RPG play.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'd say that conflict is necessary but not always sufficient for solid scenario design. And there are whole categories of game themes where the identifiable conflict is parsley instead of the main course.

Can you give us some specific examples?

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachHey, no problem.  I'm just kicking around the idea based on this thread and I thought you might have already kicked it down the road further.

Dude, I kicked it into the conceptual woods, and now I don't even know where the darn thing is anymore!

Quote from: James J SkachWhat I'm trying to hone in on is the concept of rewarding other behavior, but not in the way that, say, D&D does by suggesting role-play or story, and not in some meta-gamey way, for the various reasons you mention (and Warthur brought up in this thread).

I'm looking for a more generic approach - like xp for use of skill, etc.

No matter what the rules, in the end players create their own reward systems anyway. For example, winning a Half-Life death match using only the crowbar offers no 'official' bonus points for winning, yet it remains a fun objective. That's why I don't believe in mechanically defined reward systems, just rules and permutations. The players will decide what about it all is important to, and fun for, them.

Quote from: SeanchaiCan you give us some specific examples?

Seanchai

To be a bit repetitive...

2001: A Space Odyssey (the film) seems to me to be less about the evident conflict (Man turns off Machine) and more about the ideas, the wonder of space travel, and so-on. Another literary example would be Flatland, where the main focus is "what would interacting with a being from another planet be like?"

I've been in games like that -- where the GM's got some pretty amazing intellectual property (mind-blowing ideas) and floating through them like David Bowman or Raphael (Utopia) was pretty fascinating. I'm thinking of 2 particular games -- one of them we played a group of young folks who experienced a series of transcendent, cosmic hallucinations that disconnected us gently from the mundane world; but without any major drama or, really, trauma.

As with 2001, there was some conflict (in fact, combat) involved, but it wasn't in any way challenging or really threatening (we didn't run into anything that could really damage us).

I don't think ultra-low conflict games are particularly common, and they're something of a high-wire act (if your cool idea isn't quite up to Kubrick / Clarke, you're going to be pretentious and boring), but I've seen it done so I know it's possible.

More down-to-earth I think some of the classic joys of gaming aren't really about conflict to any really significant degree -- I talked about the basic shopping expedition above, where the players spend a session buying cool stuff. I also think the grind, where you work up a character from Level 1 to Level 3, or so with next-to-no-risk combat doesn't quite qualify as conflict (but since it definitely qualifies as *combat* I may be wrong / insane).

I've both run and played in humorous scenarios where the main point was an amusing setting or situation (I ran a dungeon that had been cleaned out by a previous party of adventurers, with no traps, no treasure, and no monsters remaining -- again, not the sort of thing that you'd want a steady diet of, but it was reasonably cool and something the players still talk about).

I also ran a game where they PC's recovered a helm of reverse alignment; that adventure had combat (a classic dungeon), but the subsequent session was more or less the PC's and NPC's speculating about what using the helm might be like and what the philosophical implications of that would be (what does it mean to go from being Chaotic Good to Lawful Evil, without really changing your personality or Int / Wis?)

Not an entire campaign with no conflict, but certainly a few sessions with nothing that I'd call a real conflict aren't that uncommon in the games I run and play in.

Specific enough?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Specific enough?

Sorry, I meant games or published scenarios.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiSorry, I meant games or published scenarios.

Seanchai

I'm confused.

When you say "games" do you mean rule-sets or instances of play? I wouldn't think of rules-sets as having anything to do with conflict or no-conflict; the rules are the rules... conflict or lack of it would come from the players.

I'm afraid I don't use published scenarios, so I can't help you there. What's wrong with the examples I provided?

Cheers,
-E.

Just so you know, E, without the conflict with HAL 9000, 2001 would have been fuckin' boring!

Great ideas and exploring conceptual themes is all well and good, but conflict isn't the garnish, its the spice, the plate, maybe even the damn flatware if the writer/GM is good.  And like a Burrito, sometimes the damn plate IS the meal.

Quote from: -E.I wouldn't think of rules-sets as having anything to do with conflict or no-conflict; the rules are the rules... conflict or lack of it would come from the players.

But surely the mechanics of any conventional RPG are all about resolving conflicts (regardless of whether those are a matter of "character versus character" or "character versus environment")?