Quote from: Levi KornelsenReally?  Interesting.

I like it when designers try to help my group point itself at what they consider the fun stuff.

THat's quite a difference of perspective, innit?

I'm halfway between you and Clash.  I consider some but not all of the rewards thing a flakey piece of theory garble.  I like D&D and have fun with it even if I'm not tracking XP -- which is most of the time I run it as a home game.  And I don't really care if the designers try to help my group point itself at what they consider the fun stuff.  Because what I care about is what *I* consider the fun stuff.  Now maybe I'll pick up some cool ideas from the designer and maybe I won't -- so I might get something of value from their pointers, but then again I might not.  Historically, not so much -- typically I read the basic game concept then get some pretty strong ideas of my own about what I want to do with the game.  Typically about 20% of my initial ideas make it into actual gameplay but as the play group comes together we find other cool things to do along the way.  

As I pointed out over on that thread on GameCraft, I think the presumption that mechanical rewards work for all players is the root of most of the flakiness in the theory garble.  One size doesn't fit all.  Mechanical rewards work great for some players.  That's the value in the theory garble -- and for those players, the value is solid.  Mechanical rewards fall flat for other players -- and that's where the theory garble falls down.  Because the theory claims that mechanical rewards work great for all players.  Which ain't true.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen'Course you can.  But when you do, the system doesn't have your back as much...

...Unless you, oh, say, use one of the thousand-odd different ways of adjusting rewards to suit that are described all over the place in D&D books.

Or just the stuff out of the DMG...

Seanchai

I've noticed or felt a slightly different thing about D&D, though that may be because I don't quite get it. Also, mind, my D&D experience ends with AD&D 1e.

I see the benefit of going up levels not as "being able to kick more ass" but as "gaining freedom of action". Once you've got a few levels under your belt, you don't have to worry quite so much about getting stomped if you make a bad move, and you can do other stuff as suits your fancy.

As the game progresses, "other stuff" takes up a greater & greater percentage of your attention, until by name level you're a mover & shaker in the world. (Thing is, we never got that far, so this last bit is just speculation.)

So if you don't enjoy kicking ass, why use the D&D XP system? Well, if you don't enjoy it at all, you shouldn't. But I see the dungeoncrawl as a sort of apprenticeship. It's a highly focused situation so you don't waste time wondering what to do. It's high-impact mechanically so you get a good grasp of the "physics of the world". And it puts all the PCs together working toward a goal so the players get to know each other well through the masks of their characters, developing the fictional relationships and patterns of interaction that will carry over as the campaign continues.

All that said, the baseline mechanical reward spiral is perfectly tailored for a style of play that emphasizes fighting. This is why I think that even if D&D didn't own the market, the market leader or leaders would still look a lot like D&D.

(Though maybe not so much for thieves? I remember thinking the standard system was a little dorked for that class. Though jrients straightened me out about that a while back--because I'd deemphasized the role of treasure in 1e XP. Restore the "and take their stuff" to the mechanical reward system, and thieves are fine.)

Quote from: Lee ShortI'm halfway between you and Clash.  I consider some but not all of the rewards thing a flakey piece of theory garble.  I like D&D and have fun with it even if I'm not tracking XP -- which is most of the time I run it as a home game.  And I don't really care if the designers try to help my group point itself at what they consider the fun stuff.  Because what I care about is what *I* consider the fun stuff.  Now maybe I'll pick up some cool ideas from the designer and maybe I won't -- so I might get something of value from their pointers, but then again I might not.  Historically, not so much -- typically I read the basic game concept then get some pretty strong ideas of my own about what I want to do with the game.  Typically about 20% of my initial ideas make it into actual gameplay but as the play group comes together we find other cool things to do along the way.  

As I pointed out over on that thread on GameCraft, I think the presumption that mechanical rewards work for all players is the root of most of the flakiness in the theory garble.  One size doesn't fit all.  Mechanical rewards work great for some players.  That's the value in the theory garble -- and for those players, the value is solid.  Mechanical rewards fall flat for other players -- and that's where the theory garble falls down.  Because the theory claims that mechanical rewards work great for all players.  Which ain't true.

An excellent point, Lee, and one I agree with entirely. I also think the main difference between your position and mine is I am a bomb-throwing anarchist.

Whenever I hear the term "Reward System" I think of Pavlov's Dogs and Skinner's Rats, and it makes me angry.



-clash

Unfortuantly the fact is that in D&D once you kill that goblin and get that extra d8 there'll just be two goblins, or a gnoll, or a dragon.  So really you never do get to kick more ass.  In earlier versions you don't even get to do more damage as you go up levels.

Quote from: SeanchaiOr just the stuff out of the DMG...

Seanchai

exactly my point. :haw:

What you're talking about that you're calling "rewards systems" in D&D, getting XP and going up in level (which you unfortunately decided to cast in as hack-n-slash a light as possible, as if that was the only way to gain XP or go up in level), is most certainly not "flakey Theory crap".

Its not Theory crap at all.

If some motherfucker over at the Forge decided to try to pretend that the idea of GETTING XP AND LEVELLING is somehow a brilliant radical new idea that no one had ever thought of before and that certainly hasn't been used ever since the very first RPGs, gave it a fancy academic-sounding name (the "Rewards cycle") and then tried to claim that games that have xp and levelling, games like D&D, games that existed long before the Forge was even an idea staining Ron Edward's sheets at night, are somehow being "inspired" by Theory in having this stuff, that's no skin off my back, but clearly said motherfucker, and others who try to back up his claims, are clearly messed up in the head and probably need to be fucking put down as a waste of oxygen.

I mean holy fuck, what will they take credit for next?! Polyhedral dice? The "Warrior"? Dungeons? Were all of these things secretly invented by Ron Edwards now???

Fucking useless cunts.

RPGPundit

Ummm..I don't recall anyone claiming the Forgeries thought up reward systems or gaining XP and levelling up. Does anyone else?

So stuff a fucking sock in it - jesus christ.

In fact, if you took your head out of your ass long enough to realize what's going on, you'll see that Levi is saying that D&D is awesome at this aspect of gaming. You might even go so far as to say Levi is saying if theory wonks want to learn about Reward Systems they should be looking at D&D as a perfect example.

Unless, of course, you think Levi is just setting us all up to be tricked into liking theory. He is clever.

Pundit:  I think you've misunderstood what Levi said.

Nobody is claiming that the term "reward mechanic" predates the actuality of the reward mechanics.  It's a term that talks about the reality of what roleplaying games are, and (hopefully) sparks ideas about what they could be in future.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat you're talking about [...] is most certainly not "flakey Theory crap".

Its not Theory crap at all.

The true parts of your post live here, chief.

I've seen Theory folk wank rhapsodic about Reward Systems, certainly, but I don't think I've ever seen even the craziest fucker from Forge-ways suggest they invented the shit.


If you're going to fight your war, P-dog, it might help to brush up on the opposition. Makes you look like less, you know, like a crazy dipshit.


I wasn't trying to pile on here, I typed slow.

What matters is that the players see themselves getting something out of it.

In Rolemaster I hand out the XP at the start of the next session, game show style, from lowest reward to highest.

Rolemaster has the best experience point system ever!  I know many people find it a lot of cludgy book work but it rewards you for what you actually do and doesn't fall into the trap of handwaved rewards, uniform group rewards, or rewards that don't scale down as things become routine.

Most importantly, it rewards players for trying new things.  They pick up new skills just for the chance to use them.  Think cooking or sewing's a waste of points?  Heck no, you can be building experience at the castle, in the cottage, and on the road while the other guys are still just waiting for something to kill.

One day I will buy D&D from WotC and ICE from that other guy and the new edition of D&D will be Rolemaster...Mwaahhahahahahahahahahaha!

No-one says that the Forgies invented reward systems - that would be so outright absurd that even the craziest crackpot wouldn't consider that.

However, they pointed that out and highlighted the fact that a.) rewards should be used to encourage the stuff that is fun and b.) rewards should be of a kind that furthers the fun stuff.
It may sound like a trivial commonplace, but it is a true trivial commonplace that can actually be of use for further designs. It beats the usefulness of GNS by several billion times

And if you look at all those "XP per adventure"-crap like the WW stuff that's sprawling everywhere, it's a trivial commonplace that can't be told often enough.

I just realized that the IHW series has a sort of reward mechanism, though it's not linked to character skill advancement, and it's not intended to reinforce playstyle, but to simulate genre. The Interest/Notice system of promotion simulates the quasi-meritocracy of military rank advancement, but it can also be seen as a reward for play similar to KTATTS. The gains are social and military rank, though, not personal improvement.  

-clash

Quote from: SkyrockIt beats the usefulness of GNS by several billion times

And a billion times zero is... ?

That's my personal usefulness, of course. Other people find real value in it.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd a billion times zero is... ?

Don't be so harsh.

"Look, there are three different styles of gaming. At least. And they look so and so, although we don't know how to keep them apart exactly, and we have absolutely no clue how we should deal with mixtures.
After these breaking news, let's get down to the interesting stuff again."

I'd award at least a 0,0137 for this shocking revelation (0,0136 of the points for "makes a nice topic for drunken chit-chat where no hard results are expected", 0,0001 for "improve my actual gaming").