Elsewhere 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?"

This is a fairly periodic query, and frequent criticism of those who emphasize reward systems. I thought I'd share what I personally enjoy about dedicated reward systems in the hope that it might shed some light on their purpose.

See, I've had the experience, time and again, of wanting to do things in a game that go against the grain of the rules, and/or what the other players are pursuing. Like, "Hey, I'm gonna make a guy who's not very strong or tough, but he's a charming devil, and manipulates others to get his way." And the other players are like, "That's nice, we'll be over here slaughtering orcs by the truckload, while you miss two out of every three swings." And everyone would get better at the slaughtering, while I wouldn't get much of anywhere, 'cause while I might get a "good roleplaying" bonus here and there, everyone else is racking up piles of XP from their massive kill count and E criticals.

Now, nothing in the game prevented me from pursuing what I wanted. There's some manner of system support for such actions, though not nearly as much as for the others' goals. And with sufficient GM and fellow-player support I could pursue off-the-beaten-path goals in a satisfying way. That's all cool. But if the reward system doesn't back me up, then it puts a damper on the play I want. Not necessarily killing it or ruining the fun, but any fun will be had by overcoming the friction of reward un-support.

But isn't the play itself the reward? Sure, it can be, and that's probably why I've often pursued that un-rewarded play often. But see,the thing is that RPG reward systems aren't pure, enjoyable-in-themselves rewards.You don't turn in your XP for candy. You turn them in for increased effectiveness in the game. So if you're playing to your eccentric, unsupported goal, instead of the systemically central one, you're not (unless the GM just likes what you're doing and just sorta gives you the XP anyway) gaining effectiveness at the same rate as other players. And, especially if increased effectiveness is needed to better pursue your goal, that can suck.

So being rewarded for my preferred play isn't an incentive to do so (I already have that; it's the desired play itself). It's a resource for pursuing that play. Some games are pretty specific with that resource, having a dedicated reward system for the kind of play the game is designed for. (Like, D&D's calibrated for defeating Challenges, and Dogs in the Vineyard toward complications and difficult choices, therefore the former grants increased challenge-beating oomph while the latter piles on more life-complicating traits.)  Which is great if everyone's on board for that particular kind of play. If the group's more diverse, I'd prefer something more flexible. The Shadow of Yesterday basically has customizable rewards that allow each player to design their own experience sytem. You want to get XP for killin' stuff? Great! Key of Bloodlust. XP for pursuing the unapproachable princess? Bing! Key of Unrequited Love. Machiavellian scheming? Key of Power. Avenging your father's murder? Key of Vengeance. Or you can buy extra Keys for infinite combinations.

I'm unaware of any other game with that degree of flexibility. D&D has its Story Awards as an alternative or supplement to the monster-killin' awards, but I find them terribly vague and of limited use. Aside from mission-based goals, they all say to me merely, "GM, wing it." Which is difficult, 'cause the GM isn't the participant who's invested in a given PC's "thing"--the PC's player is. And the player and GM may have difficulty communicating how to address that "thing." Whereas if the player can set a secific area of focus (like, "political scheming--on!") communication can be more clear and satisfaction of that goal more secure.

Anyone know of other games that address this? And how do the range of possibilities map to folks' experience and play preferences?

Peace,
-Joel

I won't bother too much with the disconnect i feel with a lot of your post. Suffice to say, if we have something we want to do as players, then the group and GM accommodate it as best they can. Reward mechanisms are often trumped as 'reinforcing certain behaviour', giving bennies or whatever in short term benifits for certain actions. I don't want to 'limit' my characters to certain actions or behaviour. I want to do what i like, when i like. Too rigid a reward mechanism and you're stuffed. I much prefer a long term reward mechanism, something that rewards me for accomplishments, not necessarily the actions themselves. For that reason, in SH, i do have a reward mechanism, but it's for achieving your goals and ambitions. How you achieve them is up to you of course, but once you have achieved one, you get the same benifit as you would from solving problems, bashing monsters etc. IE You go up a level. This in itself is a powerful motivation to accomplish things in the game world rather than act in a certain way or metagame.

Taking your wimpy manipulator as an example, one of his goals might be a 'Power goal'. Now goals and ambitions have to be specific. It's no use saying "i want power". Instead it might be something along the lines of "I want to find the book of charms so that i can charm my way into the Princes place." Accomplish that and you get a level. It could be "Influence the changes to the religious tenets of the Cult of Plenty." Well, you get the idea. It fits the political aspirations of the character concept, you can play him as a devious manipulator if you want, but any means you utilise to gain that goal will get you the same reward; a level.

Games with win / lose conditions have reward mechanics built-in.  Games where "you can do anything" usually don't.

Quote from: MelinglorAnyone know of other games that address this?

Hoard does this, and is pretty hardcore about it.  In it...

• Each character has a pool of coins.
• You spend coins to use masteries (the funky powers).
  
• You draw coins by acting on your drives (motives).
  
• You can give others the right to draw coins if they act on your influence.
• You wager coins to make scripts go (a resolution mechanic).
• Coins are one way to "buy off" attacks against you that you fail to block.

And all that stuff (drives, masteries, influences) comes packaged with traits.

Quote from: MelinglorI'm unaware of any other game with that degree of flexibility.
[...]
Anyone know of other games that address this? And how do the range of possibilities map to folks' experience and play preferences?

There are learning-by-doing systems like BRP and Interlock where you only have to use a skill effectively to improive it, no matter what skill it is, as long as it helps in the adventure.


The German FRPG Midgard gives out XP on every action that helps to beat the adventure or survive - no matter if you beat up the orc patrol, persuade them, capture them in a magically created pit or sneak behind them, you get your XP for that encounter.
You also don't have to solve encounters to gain XP - anything that helps to improve the chances gives out XP, including healing, sneaking for reconnaissance... Anything that helps to win.

(D&D goes a similar route, but a.) only hands out XPs for encounters, not for actions and b.) it sometimes seems to get forgotten that you don't have to slay an encounter to get your XP, as long as you manage to solve it.)


My current homebrew project Mazeprowl is mission-based, so you only get XP for solving your mission.
If you solve it by driving an APC inside the dungeon and blasting away everyone, by sneaking to McGuffin and sneaking out, by disguises and forged IDs in combination with good acting, by intimidating someone important and making him lead you to the McGuffin with a MP barrel in his back, by computer hacking, by magical means, or by any combination - it doesn't matter, the reward system only cares about _that_ you achieve the mission goal of the week, not _how_ you do that.
(Though there's a clear disadvantage in a straight "hack'em and slash'em" strategy, as there are rules for cop reactions, reinforcements and tracing by investigations (that get a massive bonus if you leave a high body count and demolition whole walls with explosives). A more stealthy tactic in combination with sneak attacks or a surge of violence on the last few rooms though...)

In addition to that, everyone gets three Impulses which are quite similar to TSoY Keys. They don't generate XP though - they generate ego points that are used to refresh your re-roll resource and to buy and improve befriended NPCs.
The point of them is that I want to reward to play ambitious characters instead of slick teflon-billies, and I want to reinforce emotional investment into your PC without distracting from the mission-based game structure and main goal.
Therefore to play out Impulses gives only a nice-to-have resource that isn't as much worth as the XP for mission completement, so it isn't worth it to play a moron who blows the mission goal for everyone to pursue his personal goal for a meager re-roll point.

Quote from: Melinglor...
See, I've had the experience, time and again, of wanting to do things in a game that go against the grain of the rules, and/or what the other players are pursuing. Like, "Hey, I'm gonna make a guy who's not very strong or tough, but he's a charming devil, and manipulates others to get his way." And the other players are like, "That's nice, we'll be over here slaughtering orcs by the truckload, while you miss two out of every three swings." And everyone would get better at the slaughtering, while I wouldn't get much of anywhere, 'cause while I might get a "good roleplaying" bonus here and there, everyone else is racking up piles of XP from their massive kill count and E criticals.

....

Anyone know of other games that address this? And how do the range of possibilities map to folks' experience and play preferences?

Peace,
-Joel

I'll have to say I share the disconnect.  Any other games that address this?  I'd say D&D.  I won't get into editions or such will just say how I have always seen it played and have played it.  It may be a "house-rule" but it is one so easily implemented that it is a no-brainer.  Here it is:

  You get xp for overcoming challenges (combat, social, what have you) and all experience points are shared equally if everyone was there, no matter their role.    A bonus may be given for doing something particularily daring or creative.  The degree of xp reward is consumate with the degree of "danger" / "loss."  Simple.  Monsters have xp pre-noted because it is easy to quantify the degree of combat danger they present, social situations you will have to wing it just like in what is "good" role-playing for "role-playing" rewards.

Finally be mature about it.  Sneaking past a sleeping rat or bartering for food are not xp worthy events.   Sneaking past the sleeping ogres or tricking them, having a successful auidience with a powerful figure, returning your fallen family to prominance are all very xp worthy.  

Problem solved.  You social interaction guy gets a share of xp in combat situations (because they also serve who only stand and wait .  Likewise, fast talking past a guard (the social guys strong area) should get a reward (probably the same for fighting him) as you got by this challenge just in a non-violent way.   In fact, I've often seen non-violent xp awards be higher that pure kill-em-all as the non-violent approach often exposes you to greater danger and requires more thinking / role-playing.

Certainly YMMV, your expereinces with traditional RPGs certainly differ from mine.

I agree with Melinglor. I prefer rules that hammer out the reward systems in the most general terms and support the GM in handing out the candy to the players. Reward systems are the infrastructure by which the GM can manage the adventure, while filling in the details himself (as in the 'Power' example by OHT).

The problem I have with D&D (even tough it is still better in that regard, compared to other other  games with virtually no infrastructure) is that while it is possible to solve the encounters in other ways than combat, the XP-awards are out of touch with this simple fact (if you Bluff your way past an ogre you get a shitload of XP, even though it is ridiculously easy to lie to the dumb oaf , because the encounter level is based on his combat prowess)- therefore when you use other methods than combat, the relation between effort and reward gets a bit...wonky.

Of course the GM can adjust the rewards of the encounters, but as a GM I would rather not waste so much time on administrative duties and concentrate more on, you know..., running an awesome campaign.

Thanks, guys! Lotta great comments.

Starting with OHT:

Quote from: One Horse TownSuffice to say, if we have something we want to do as players, then the group and GM accommodate it as best they can.

Yeah, that's one thing I neglected to cover in my already-overlong post: a group can simply work this out for themselves. This is a fine solution, and one that I do employ in rulesets that don't offer me what I what I'm looking for systemically. One GM I play with is particularly accommodating and helpful in my pursuing my own goals--when she can work out what they are and how best to address them. I guess my point is that it doesn't hurt to have the rules working with us in this regard, both to aid communication between me and the GM, and take a workload off her in meeting my goals. It's like Alexandro said:

Quote from: alexandroOf course the GM can adjust the rewards of the encounters, but as a GM I would rather not waste so much time on administrative duties and concentrate more on, you know..., running an awesome campaign.

In other words, an awesome GM will be an asset to any campaign, but anyplay aid that can relieve pressure and let her get on with being awesome is OK by me.

Quote from: One Horse TownI don't want to 'limit' my characters to certain actions or behaviour. I want to do what i like, when i like. Too rigid a reward mechanism and you're stuffed.

Absolutely. That's what I'm saying--that given the presence of a reward system, I'd usually prefer a flexible one.

Quote from: One Horse TownI much prefer a long term reward mechanism, something that rewards me for accomplishments, not necessarily the actions themselves. For that reason, in SH, i do have a reward mechanism, but it's for achieving your goals and ambitions. How you achieve them is up to you of course, but once you have achieved one, you get the same benifit as you would from solving problems, bashing monsters etc. IE You go up a level.

That sounds great. I'm all for exploring all kinds of reward mechanism for all kinds of things, and yours sounds fun (what's "SH" stand for,anyway?). Interestingly, TSoY uses a combination of awards for acomplishing certain things, and awards for behaving in certain ways regardless of outcome. It also grants small awards for commonplace actions or incremental steps, as well as bigger awards for greater accomplshments. But then, its unit of benefit is somewhat smaller than what usually constitutes a "level."

Now, all the rest o' y'all:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHoard does this, and is pretty hardcore about it.  In it...

• Each character has a pool of coins.
• You spend coins to use masteries (the funky powers).
  
• You draw coins by acting on your drives (motives).
  
• You can give others the right to draw coins if they act on your influence.
• You wager coins to make scripts go (a resolution mechanic).
• Coins are one way to "buy off" attacks against you that you fail to block.

And all that stuff (drives, masteries, influences) comes packaged with traits.

Sweet. Sounds pretty cool. I like how you've got a tough choice in some situations: spend your coins (and lose oomph for achieving your ends)to block damage, or hoard the precious shineys and take a punch.

Quote from: SkyrockThere are learning-by-doing systems like BRP and Interlock where you only have to use a skill effectively to improive it, no matter what skill it is, as long as it helps in the adventure.

That's a good point, something like BRP's skill-increase system definitely ties increased effectiveness to what you pursue in game, at least in terms of means, not ends. And it's brutally honest in its feedback on how useful a given skill actually is in play.

Quote from: SkyrockThe German FRPG Midgard gives out XP on every action that helps to beat the adventure or survive - no matter if you beat up the orc patrol, persuade them, capture them in a magically created pit or sneak behind them, you get your XP for that encounter.

[SNIP]

(D&D goes a similar route, but a.) only hands out XPs for encounters, not for actions and b.) it sometimes seems to get forgotten that you don't have to slay an encounter to get your XP, as long as you manage to solve it.)

That's an interesting distinction: rewarding individual actions as opposed to just overall results. Of course, player preference may vary on this, as One Horse Town demonstrates above with his "long-term accomplishment" system.

Quote from: XantherI'll have to say I share the disconnect.  Any other games that address this?  I'd say D&D.  I won't get into editions or such will just say how I have always seen it played and have played it.  It may be a "house-rule" but it is one so easily implemented that it is a no-brainer.

Yeah, that's certainly a functional solution and one that's not even terribly house-ruled from my reading of D&D. I think my preference is for more of a personalized, individuated system,where I get my XP from my thing, and you get your XP from yours, and we're both happy. (Which is a nightmare of bookkeeping of administration--unless you've got a system like TSoY's Keys or Levi's coins). The key departure from the "All for one" system is that I can now feel free to have my character's actions diverge from the group's path without letting down the team or missing out on my reward. We can play a game of separate, diverging-and-intercepting motives and pathways instead of the one-celled-organism, "party goes here, party does this, party moves on" model. Does that makes sense?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Melinglor(what's "SH" stand for,anyway?).

Psst... Stone Horizons.

Well...

If I was running my Brown-Box D&D game and you wanted

"a guy who's not very strong or tough, but he's a charming devil, and manipulates others to get his way"

then I'd give you serious XP for playing a guy who's not very strong or tough, but he's a charming devil, and manipulates others to get his way.

Just like I'd give Dabgnorts the Barbarian serious XP for killing things and taking their stuff.

You be successful with your character, you reap the benefits, and fuck what's written in the rules.

I am the GM.  I wear the Viking Hat.  The rules are my slave, not my master.

Quote from: Old GeezerThe rules are my slave, not my master.

Is this yours?  Can I have it?

Uh, I think it's Kyle's.

So, that rhetoric aside, I guess I can take this as another weigh-in for "just have the GM wing it/houserule it." Which is, y'know, fine. . .that's exactly what I'd want to do if the game didn't give me an adequate framework. And what the better GMs I've played with would do. Unfortunately, not everyone I've played with is as enlightened as them or you, Geezer. A lot of them would probably just roll right along with their usual XP-by-combat-encounter method, indifferent to whatever I might be doing outside that framework, maybe throwing out an RP bonus here and there if I turned in a particularly entertaining performance. Sounds like I'd much rather have you GM, but given that I can't always have everything I want, I'm exploring rule systems that might help me get what I want if the purely social angle falls through. Or that, when the social factor is running well, can help things along and make the game even more fun.

I'vefound that Keys do that. Anyone found any other systems that do?

Peace,
-Joel

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

To the best of my knowledge, this is original.  If somebody has seen it in those words elsewhere, let me know.

If it's mine, go ahead.

Quote from: MelinglorA lot of them would probably just roll right along with their usual XP-by-combat-encounter method, indifferent to whatever I might be doing outside that framework, maybe throwing out an RP bonus here and there if I turned in a particularly entertaining performance.

Serious question.

Do 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.

Do you folks do that?