Quote from: Old GeezerDo you folks do that?

Yup.

Quote from: Old GeezerDo your game groups spend much pre-campaign time discussing what each player and the GM want and how to get it?

Explicitly saying "I want to play a charming non-combat type, how can we make that work?" sort of thing.

I've played campaigns where we did that, and games where everyone just sorta made their characters in isolation, hoping it would all just kinda come together on its own,knock wood.

I vastly prefer the former.

Peace,
-Joel

After a bit of more thinking, I guess session-based XP where everyone gets the same after each adventure might be what you are looking for. (Vampire as it is often house-ruled would be an prime example, as are many other games that derived from it and its predecessors in reward structure like Shadowrun.)

They aren't what I'd call technically a reward system (except maybe as an incentive to show up at all), but they definitively disconnect character progression from the actual ends and means, so that Battle Boy doesn't outshine Prince Charming progession-wise.

Quote from: Old GeezerDo your game groups spend much pre-campaign time discussing what each player and the GM want and how to get it?

Explicitly saying "I want to play a charming non-combat type, how can we make that work?" sort of thing.

I wouldn't say that there is much time spent on it in my group, but it's something that definitively talked about before play starts.
I prefer it anyway to do character creation together to avoid "three paladins and a chaotic/evil rogue"-parties and to tie the PCs a bit better together, so that it isn't much hassle to discuss such subjects briefly.
However, I prefer systems where every niche has definitively its place to shine without graticious GM assistance (as Savage Worlds where Prince Charming can soften up the baddies by Intimidation, Taunts and Tests of Will, while the Battle Boys whack them dead).

Quote from: SkyrockAfter a bit of more thinking, I guess session-based XP where everyone gets the same after each adventure might be what you are looking for.

That's actually how my group normally does it.  XP at the end of a session based on how long or complicated the session was.  Everyone get the same regardless of how they play.  So Melinglor can play his charming devil and get the same XP as the combat monster and if he wants to be a combat monster for a session or another player wants to be a charming devil, they won't be penalized for it.

Quote from: SkyrockAfter a bit of more thinking, I guess session-based XP where everyone gets the same after each adventure might be what you are looking for. (Vampire as it is often house-ruled would be an prime example, as are many other games that derived from it and its predecessors in reward structure like Shadowrun.)

They aren't what I'd call technically a reward system (except maybe as an incentive to show up at all), but they definitively disconnect character progression from the actual ends and means, so that Battle Boy doesn't outshine Prince Charming progession-wise.

Well, that's one solution, but it's always seemed kinda. . .boring to me. Like Geezer's "have the GM work it out" proposal, it's sort of a second-string/last-resort solution for me. Yeah, it has the advantage of nobody lagging behind, but I'd personally rather have progression tied to "the actual ends and means." I'm not looking for a commie hippie-lovefest version of "equality," where everyone's a unique snowflake and we've got to make sure everyone has the same situation so as not to show a whiff of favoritism. That was my Grandma's version of equality. I'm looking for more of a level playing field where everyone has equal opportunity to shine at their thing, but not guaranteed success. They've got to fight for it, if you will. I think the purest expression I've seen of this is Capes, but I like Shadow of Yesterday's implementation of it
within a more familiar Gm-and-players fantasy adventuring structure.

Quote from: SkyrockI prefer systems where every niche has definitively its place to shine without graticious GM assistance (as Savage Worlds where Prince Charming can soften up the baddies by Intimidation, Taunts and Tests of Will, while the Battle Boys whack them dead).

Man, I really need to try Savage Worlds sometime.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorElsewhere on the site I recently saw the question raised: "If people want to engage in particular behaviors in their roleplaying, why do they need a reward system to incentivise them to do it?"

You don't reward yourself for what you want to do, you reward others for what you want them to do.

If I enjoy seeing people hack their way through hordes of goblins, I don't award myself xp for it, I award others xp for it.

Reward what you want to encourage.

"But if they enjoy it, they don't need a reward for it." By which reasoning, if I like my job my boss shouldn't have to pay me for it. If I like wearing a nice suit, I shouldn't need my girlfriend to compliment me while wearing it. Bollocks.

XP serve a social purpose, it's a thing at the level of the players around the game table. XP are a token of esteem, like the schoolteacher putting the little gold star on your homework, or the football club giving you a certificate of appreciation. That helps keep things nice. People like to feel appreciated.

Reward what you want to encourage, and reward the people you want to encourage.

Quote from: Old GeezerI am the GM. I wear the Viking Hat. The rules are my slave, not my master.

Quote from: James J SkachIs this yours?  Can I have it?

Quote from: Old GeezerTo the best of my knowledge, this is original. If somebody has seen it in those words elsewhere, let me know.

It may be parallel evolution. I express it as in my sig,

I master the game, the game does not master me.

I cut it short to fit neatly in the sig, the full version is,

I am the Game Master. I wear the Viking Hat! I master the game, the game does not master me.

I came up with the last sentence in response to all the people who stare at me with wide eyes when I say, "if the rule doesn't do what you want, change it." Their eyes widen further, they edge their chair away from me, saying, "But it's the rules!"

My experience is that the players who are most concerned about the rules also have the most boring or annoying characters.

The spirit of the saying comes from "I wear the Viking Hat!" - in which Moochava describes how GMs should deal with argumentative players. He goes on to describe how sometimes it's good for the GM to "just pin the player to the table and hump his hams."

Quote from: MoochavaI'm running the game, not three-hundred pages of recycled paper and second-rate art.

Speaking for myself, for all practical purposes anything you post in a public place online is public domain. Use or misuse my words as you see fit.

Kyle, you know I can barely see after reading your posts. You expect to read your sig too? :haw:

Just so ya know, I'm talking about the "The rules are my slave.." part, not the viking hat. And I like the way OG phrased it - no offense.

Either way it's phrased, I like the sentiment.  So thanks guys.

Quote from: Kyle AaronXP serve a social purpose, it's a thing at the level of the players around the game table. XP are a token of esteem, like the schoolteacher putting the little gold star on your homework, or the football club giving you a certificate of appreciation. That helps keep things nice. People like to feel appreciated.

Now I feel pretty disconnected.

Why would you need an artificial mechanic to show appreciation? Especially the appreciation of only one participant of the gaming group? I pretty much know when something cool happens, because the whole group cheers and hollers. There is no need to cater specifically to the GM.

Your example is misleading, because it puts it the wrong way around: you get the star on you homework (or the football trophy or whatever) and because of it you have the admiration of your class/school/college (functioning like a badge of honor or military rank). You already have the admiration of your team and in roleplaying the other players are your team. XP never serve the purpose as being a sign of admiration (you never hear people saying "He is a great roleplayer, because his PC has 10.000 XP.")

For me reward systems are more about strategy (doing certain things, because it makes your PC better in the long run)- the "game" element of a RPG- than about the social element, where they fail for the reasons discussed above.

Quote from: alexandroWhy would you need an artificial mechanic to show appreciation?

Why would you need an artificial mechanic to resolve combat? To determine lockpicking? To determine healing? All game mechanics are artificial.

So what?

Quote from: alexandroEspecially the appreciation of only one participant of the gaming group?

Who says it's only one? What, the GM just rewards what they like, and pays no attention to the desires and needs of the group? That's a GM who won't have a group for long.

A sensible GM will give xp rewards for what the group has a consensus on being "good play".

Quote from: alexandroI pretty much know when something cool happens, because the whole group cheers and hollers.

Yeah, I've heard a lot of players say that sort of thing. Funnily enough, none of them ever turn down the xp. I've got one who often says he's been awarded too much. "Okay," I say, "I'll take it back, then. Everyone else gets normal, you get 1xp. Okay?"
"No, no, that's alright, I was just saying..."

You can have Alexandro's Group Hug, and have xp.

Quote from: alexandroThere is no need to cater specifically to the GM.

No? I think you're forgetting the "master" part of "Game Master". The GM gets special rights to reward because the GM usually has an overview of the game that players don't; players naturally tend focus on themselves and their characters and have a narrow view of things.

Quote from: alexandroYour example is misleading, because it puts it the wrong way around: you get the star on you homework (or the football trophy or whatever) and because of it you have the admiration of your class/school/college (functioning like a badge of honor or military rank).

No. It's both. You get the admiration, and the gold star is a symbol of that admiration, and it increases the admiration, in a positive feedback cycle.

Quote from: alexandroXP never serve the purpose as being a sign of admiration (you never hear people saying "He is a great roleplayer, because his PC has 10.000 XP.")

And you never hear people saying, "he's a great soldier, because he was promoted Sergeant." So what? Promotion is still a token of admiration, of appreciation. Likewise, with xp rewards.

Quote from: alexandroFor me reward systems are more about strategy (doing certain things, because it makes your PC better in the long run)- the "game" element of a RPG- than about the social element, where they fail for the reasons discussed above.

If social elements fail for you, perhaps that's because you're more focused on the strategy. It's just a question of what you're there for.

I think that roleplaying is a social creative hobby. Some are more focused on the social, and some on the creative (and "strategy" is part of the "creative"). I'm speaking of what xp means in general to roleplayers, not what it means to alexandro in particular, about which I'll be utterly indifferent unless I'm playing with you.

Quote from: alexandroNow I feel pretty disconnected.

Why would you need an artificial mechanic to show appreciation?

The GM knows all of what's going on.  The players know only part.

XP are ** one ** of the means whereby the GM lets the players know that they're moving in the right direction.  This could be "unraveling the plot" or "behaving like Knights of the Realm" or "successfully being nice to the Princess" or "negotiating a delicate treaty" or "killing them and taking their stuff".  In any case, XP show the players that the GM thinks positively of the way they're acting.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhy would you need an artificial mechanic to resolve combat? To determine lockpicking? To determine healing? All game mechanics are artificial.

Yes, but the former are artificial processes to determine artificial situations. The latter are artificial mechanics to reinforce how the group is supposed to feel about the game (an organic, non-artificial process).

QuoteWho says it's only one? What, the GM just rewards what they like, and pays no attention to the desires and needs of the group? That's a GM who won't have a group for long.
...
No? I think you're forgetting the "master" part of "Game Master". The GM gets special rights to reward because the GM usually has an overview of the game that players don't; players naturally tend focus on themselves and their characters and have a narrow view of things.

GMs have an overview alright, but when determining this kind of XP-awards, they have to get to the detail of the game, because thats where most of the XP-awards are actually taking place. Its the switching between these two levels of the game, that I find unappealing.

QuoteYeah, I've heard a lot of players say that sort of thing. Funnily enough, none of them ever turn down the xp. I've got one who often says he's been awarded too much. "Okay," I say, "I'll take it back, then. Everyone else gets normal, you get 1xp. Okay?"
"No, no, that's alright, I was just saying..."

*shrugs* If it works for you. For me if a player doesn't feel properly rewarded it is a flaw in the reward system (in this case embodied by the GM). Hushing them up by saying "OK, then you don't get the XP" misses the point of why the rewards are structured the way they are.

QuoteAnd you never hear people saying, "he's a great soldier, because he was promoted Sergeant."

Actually, thats EXACTLY what his promotion into this rank is supposed to mean (I say "supposed" because it doesn't always work out this way in reality. But the cases of shithead sergeants are so annoying to people, because they are seen as a discrepancy to what the rank is actually supposed to mean).

QuoteIf social elements fail for you, perhaps that's because you're more focused on the strategy. It's just a question of what you're there for.

I totally see roleplaying as a social hobby and am fine with the "playing with friends" aspect of it. I fail to see XP-awards as an important part of the social process, however. In my opinion games where you don't get XP (like Amber, Everway or Traveller) don't produce vastly (socially) different session than games where you do get your XP.

@Geezer:

QuoteIn any case, XP show the players that the GM thinks positively of the way they're acting.

In any case (and in your examples), XP show the players, whether the GM thought (past tense) positively of the way they acted (past tense). Provided he is consistent in his opinion of what "the right direction" for the game is (as a good GM should), the players can (more or less exact) assess which actions in further sessions might be "the right direction"(TM) and therefore XP-worthy.

Congratulations, you just wrote your very own reward system. Now that wasn't too hard, wasn't it?

Quote from: alexandro@Geezer:

In any case (and in your examples), XP show the players, whether the GM thought (past tense) positively of the way they acted (past tense).

While I'm not entirely agreeing with Geezer, I don't think his XP rewards _have_ to be for things in the past - it _might_ also be that he gives XP on the spot rather than bundled on the end of the adventure.

I can't decide whether his "nobody gets anything" is worse than that, "but why don't we all just get the same xp?" nonsense.

It's bloody communism, is what it is.

Don't worry, alexandro, if you were playing in my game, I wouldn't give you any xp at all. I'd give everyone else some, though. Just not you - since you don't believe in it, I wouldn't want you to compromise your principles.

Lots of gamers speak against xp. I've never seen anyone yet refuse it.

Games without xp: Amber, Traveller - by an amazing coincidence, these are games which, in comparison to games with xp, are much-admired but rarely-played.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNo. It's both. You get the admiration, and the gold star is a symbol of that admiration, and it increases the admiration, in a positive feedback cycle.

When I work at a company, generally the more structured, inflexible, and required the mechanism for rewards (e.g., awards, bonuses, raises), the less enjoyable the company is to work for and the more problems it has motivating employees.  When people are already motivated and having fun, they don't need a structured reward mechanism and the introduction of one can actually hurt motivation and fun by forcing people into specific types of behavior that they may hate or that may not work for them.

I see the same thing at work when I role-play.  Normally, my group just gives everyone the same XP based on how interesting or long the session is.  When I ran D&D and played D&D, suddenly people felt obliged to have their characters do certain things to get experience points and would even argue with the GM over the experience points for a given encounter or (in the case of the game I played in) role-playing based rewards that didn't feel fair instead of just playing their character.

If it helps you or your group, by all means do it.  Personally, I don't think it improves the quality of the games that I play in.  I think it hurts the quality.