Honestly, I figured out all this crap a long time ago in my Psych courses, without needing to read any theory to figure it out.

With that said, it's good theory because it's quite obviously true.

If you set up a system in which players are rewarded for rescuing princesses, they will go on many rescue-the-princess quests.  If they're rewarded for humor, they will (try to) be funny.  If the rewards are given for killing stuff, they will look for stuff to kill.  It's not rocket science; it's pure operant conditioning.

-O

Quote from: obrynHonestly, I figured out all this crap a long time ago in my Psych courses, without needing to read any theory to figure it out.

With that said, it's good theory because it's quite obviously true.

If you set up a system in which players are rewarded for rescuing princesses, they will go on many rescue-the-princess quests.  If they're rewarded for humor, they will (try to) be funny.  If the rewards are given for killing stuff, they will look for stuff to kill.  It's not rocket science; it's pure operant conditioning.

-O

Sure. I agree absolutely, as do pavlov's dogs. Woof!

-clash

Two things to think about:

1. Rewards have to be something the players actually value.
2. If you're mechanically rewarding something people would enjoy doing anyway...what's the point?

Quote from: Elliot WilenTwo things to think about:

1. Rewards have to be something the players actually value.
2. If you're mechanically rewarding something people would enjoy doing anyway...what's the point?

Using (loose) operant terminology, "enjoyment" is a primary reward.  XP and whatnot are secondary rewards - they can be 'cashed in' or whatever for increased enjoyment.

A GM can use rewards in one of two chief ways...  (1) Encourage behavior a player would otherwise not engage in, or (2) encourage behavior a player engages in already.

Reward systems steer games in the rewarded directions, and if those are also enjoyable, it will encourage them all the more.

-O

Quote from: TonyLBPundit:  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.

Should people base Theory off of what actually works (ie. D&D)? Of course, that's what I've been saying for a long while.

But this thread seems like an ass-backward way of looking at it, saying that D&D  is a good example of one of the Forge's terms being correct, when my point is that this is just something the Forge is claiming originality for that every normal gamer in the world has already known, without needing Forge Theory to explain it to them, for the last 30 years.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SkyrockNo-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

Yes, but everyone already knows this. And it doesn't explain why people then turn around and piss all over the very games that have done this all along.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBut this thread seems like an ass-backward way of looking at it, saying that D&D  is a good example of one of the Forge's terms being correct, when my point is that this is just something the Forge is claiming originality for that every normal gamer in the world has already known, without needing Forge Theory to explain it to them, for the last 30 years.

Well, then don't look at it as "Forge Theory."  You can look at it as game theory, or as I did, like operant conditioning.

A very real and sometimes important part of theory is (a) collecting all the existing evidence, (b) filtering out what works, (c) trying to look for common themes, and (d) stating it concisely.

Then, when you're designing your own game, you or someone else can take a look at this summary, and use or ignore it as you/they wish.

It's probably more correct to look at it like Levi did.  "Hey, D&D seems to have a really good reward system.  I think it's because of X, Y, and Z!  Wow, people really shouldn't ignore this when they're making their own games!"

-O

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but everyone already knows this. And it doesn't explain why people then turn around and piss all over the very games that have done this all along.

RPGPundit

I must have missed the part where Levi was pissing on D&D in his post.  It must have been between the lines where he's talking about how its reward system  kicks ass.

:confused:

-O

So here's the thing, I'm a big believer in story rewards for accomplishing story goals and mechanical goals for mechanical accomplishments.  That is to say you won't get any XP for rescuing the princess but if you play your cards right you might step into the nobility overnight or being rewarded as richly as only a king can or even just get laid.  But you won't get XP for it.  For every thing you did to rescue her yes but not for the rescue itself.

So, XP for travel, XP for combat, XP for spell casting, XP for skill use, XP for ideas, but no XP for mission completion.  Also, no XP for gold unless you spent it on training.

Really I've never understood Gary Gygax, here he's got 1000 to 4000 gp per level but he's also giving you XP for the GP.  Then there's a page and a half on the importance of keeping the players poor.  It's just weird that it got two different rules when one would have worked better for the whole mess.

Quote from: obrynI must have missed the part where Levi was pissing on D&D in his post.  It must have been between the lines where he's talking about how its reward system  kicks ass.

:confused:

-O

Levi isn't pissing on D&D. This is yet another of his attempts to find "common ground" between the Theory Swine and regular roleplayers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditLevi isn't pissing on D&D. This is yet another of his attempts to find "common ground" between the Theory Swine and regular roleplayers.

Not...   exactly.

If I have a dark agenda here, this is self-validation.  When I design "light" games these days, they tend to be almost wholly centered around incentive-based stuff.  And people try to tell me that it's a "new wave" practice, doing that.

While, to me, I'm just designing new "rules-light" gamestuff based on the oldest stuff running around in games.  As it happens, the rules I think are important to keep when going "light" aren't the same ones that others do, but they aren't new and alien ideas.

Quote from: flyingmiceit's not intended to reinforce playstyle, but to simulate genre.

"Simulating genre" is totally part of many playstyles.

(To be extra clear - for the record, I'm not talking about 'theory type' playstyles here.  Just, y'know, different styles of play, in a loosely generic way, as I usually do).

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNot...   exactly.

If I have a dark agenda here, this is self-validation.  When I design "light" games these days, they tend to be almost wholly centered around incentive-based stuff.  And people try to tell me that it's a "new wave" practice, doing that.

While, to me, I'm just designing new "rules-light" gamestuff based on the oldest stuff running around in games.  As it happens, the rules I think are important to keep when going "light" aren't the same ones that others do, but they aren't new and alien ideas.

What's new and alien is a re-writing of the past, such that games which give rewards for combat must therefore be combat games seeing as games can't be rewarding beyond the rules for rewards.

Only it's not new and alien: it's a well-known Forge saw that's getting about as old as your folksiness shtick, turtle.

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

Seanchai

Yep.  

Also, the (non-Monte) Arcana book had some cool stuff here.  And Oriental Adventures had some interesting ideas about "the problem of looting" in a culture where being ceremonially unclean actually matters.  And...

Well, there's lots.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat's new and alien is a re-writing of the past, such that games which give rewards for combat must therefore be combat games seeing as games can't be rewarding beyond the rules for rewards.

Only it's not new and alien: it's a well-known Forge saw that's getting about as old as your folksiness shtick, turtle.

*Tries to untangle that*

So, your accusation is, that by enjoying how combat rewards work in D&D, I'm saying that D&D is therefore a "combat game".  You're also saying that by doing so, I'm rewriting the past.

Oh, and you don't like me being 'folksy', and want to associate me with the Forge.

....I think I've got all that.

Okay, then, without the folksyness:

I wasn't drawing you a rorschach test for you to project your shit onto, asshole.