TheRPGSite

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 :p, 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7037).

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?

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! (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=290108&postcount=18)" - 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. (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=290600&postcount=24)"

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.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI 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.

So you actually wants your players competing with each other and the GM for experience points rewarded at the game level and some players losing out because their idea of a fun game doesn't match what the GM rewards?

Quote from: Kyle AaronLots of gamers speak against xp. I've never seen anyone yet refuse it.

One of the people that I play with generally creates the character that he wants to play from the beginning and isn't eager to apply XP to his characters.  He often winds up sitting on a large pile of them by the end of the campaign because he usually only spends them when other players encourage him to.

Quote from: SkyrockWhile 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.

This is also the past (as the action already happened).

I agree with Greg Costikyan (http://www.costik.com/nowords.html#Info) in the respect, that a player must be able to judge to some degree what he is rewarded for and to base his decisions on it, or it doesn't really affect his behavior. The player has to know to some degree what assumptions the GM is basing his decisions upon.

QuoteInformation
[...]
Say you've got a computer wargame in which weather affects movement and defense. If you don't tell the player that weather has an effect, what good is it? It won't affect the player's behavior; it won't affect his decisions.

Or maybe you tell him weather has an effect, but the player has no way of telling whether it's raining or snowing or what at any given time. Again, what good is that?

Or maybe he can tell, and he does know, but he has no idea what effect weather has -- maybe it cuts everyone's movement in half, or maybe it slows movement across fields to a crawl but does nothing to units moving along roads. This is better, but not a whole lot.

The interface must provide the player with relevant information. And he must have enough information to be able to make a sensible decision.

That isn't to say a player must know everything; hiding information can be very useful. It's quite reasonable to say, "you don't know just how strong your units are until they enter combat," but in this case, the player must have some idea of the range of possibilities. It's reasonable to say, "you don't know what card you'll get if you draw to an inside straight," but only if the player has some idea what the odds are. If I might draw the Queen of Hearts and might draw Death and might draw the Battleship Potemkin, I have absoutely no basis on which to make a decision.

[/SIZE]

Otherwise its like you scribbling some random words on a paper during an essay in class and you get an A+ and you're like "Kinda cool, I wish I knew how to do that again.", but can't because the next time you are judged by completely different criteria.

Getting XP is well and nice and no player is going to refuse those, but what the really like is not just stumbling into a situation where they get them, but knowing which direction to take to the reward.

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

Add StarCluster, Sweet Chariot, Cold Space, FTL Now, Book of Jalan, and Blood Games. By a strange coincidence, all games I write and publish. My In Harm's Way series has something resembling XP - notice points - but these are given in character, have no rigid protocol for giving, and do not affect the character's skills, HP, or abilities in any way, as they are applied to promotion within a military organization only. Again games which are rarely played, but I wouldn't say they are widely admired. They aren't widely anything. Now you know my opinion of reward mechanics.

-clash

Amber has probably got to be the most-played "small press" (or "Indie" if you like) game in the history of RPGs. Hell, as far as I know, only D&D has more game-specific Cons dedicated to it than Amber does. Check out how many campaign-log websites there are about Amber. Its stunning, particularly when you consider that there hasn't been a new product for the game in well over ten years.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowWhen 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.  

Roleplaying is a hobby, not a job. The reasons to do it are different, so the things which motivate a player during play will also be different.

Nor have I said that xp rewards ought to be structured and inflexible. I do think they should be structured rather than arbitrary and whimsical, to give the players some predictability in things, but they should not be structured and inflexible.

Quote from: John MorrowSo you actually wants your players competing with each other and the GM for experience points rewarded at the game level and some players losing out because their idea of a fun game doesn't match what the GM rewards?

The players aren't competing with each-other. Competitions are for games where one loses and another wins. There aren't a fixed pool of xp to be spread amongst the players which they have to fight for; it's quite possible for everyone to get lots, or everyone to get nothing.

If the players' idea of a fun game does not match the GM's, then that should be discussed within the group. When players get zero xp after a session, be sure that they will then start a discussion with the GM on what they enjoy. I don't see how the absence of xp, or the uniform awarding of them, would help this conversation along - if anything, it'd hinder it.

Quote from: John MorrowOne of the people that I play with generally creates the character that he wants to play from the beginning and isn't eager to apply XP to his characters. He often winds up sitting on a large pile of them by the end of the campaign because he usually only spends them when other players encourage him to.

That player is not refusing xp, they're simply not spending it. Have the GM say, "since you don't spend it, I won't give it to you anymore" and watch what happens. My instinct is that the player won't be content with that.

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

The entire family of BRP games, including Runequest and Call of Cthulhu, also have no XP. Same goes for Harnmaster. Characters in those games do improve, but the mechanic is entirely objective and and in-game.

I'm not finding Kyle very persuasive in this thread.

Ok, it seems like I should weigh in here as it's my thread and all, but I honestly feel like the thread's run away from me a bit. it dipped a bit into "the GM is law!" posturing, which is causing a lot of folks to miss the forest for one particular tree. To wit:

It's not all about the GM. The conversation here feels like this to me:

Me: "Hey, what different ways could you implement a reward mechanic?"

Some others: "Well, the GM could award points based on this, or reward them based on that. . ."

Me (and at least one other): ". . .uh, what about the GM not being the gatekeeper of rewards at all?"

GM-awarded EXP is one way to go, but not the only way. the game I originally references, The Shadow of Yesterday, has players award themselves EXP. So it's not "give me XP when you feel I've fulfilled this requirement," it's "I'll be taking XP when *I* feel I've fulfilled this requirement." Totally different dynamic. In Primetime Adventures, the players reward each other. In Dogs in the Vineyard, players are rewarded entirely systemically based on their choices. The same in, as Elliot points out, in the BRP system. And yet GM as XP-giver is being adopted in this thread as a default.

I guess I don't have much more to add. . .aside from highlighting that disconnect, I'm pretty much done unless someone has any insight to add, orcan, as the OP asked,point me to a reward system besides TSoY's that provides the goal-pursuing flexibility I like (BRP goes partway toward this--use a skill,see improvement, reinforcing that skill use in the future--but doesn't have much to do with non-skill based goals).

Peace,
-Joel

Melingor: I'm going to just skip over all the responses in this thread. Okay, I skimmed them but that's my business.

Anyway, to address your OP directly:

I think this is a mistaken perspective in the current state of Gaming. My library is huge, I've many games from many eras of gaming and I can tell you that awarding XP for kills on an individual basis is a dying, if not actually dead, model.  Some archeologists looking for 'old skool' flavor may be trying to assemble museum peice games that still do that, but damnit all if even D&D didn't drop it like a hot rock with the 3E stuff.

Your OP sounds like something dug out of an archive from the early nineties on some LAN server or something.  

More: I have never seen any GM... EVER... take the time to compute xp on a per character basis. The 'Party' kills a dozen goblins, the party splits a dozen goblins worth of xp. I don't doubt that there were GMs who were anal beancounter assholes who DID do it on a swing by swing basis, but... ugh.

Maybe I gamed in some sort of utopian bubble of group XP, and played doomed games that handed out XP under any number of systems that were NOT based off of dead carcasses left to rot under a merciless sun.

Quote from: SpikeMaybe I gamed in some sort of utopian bubble of group XP, and played doomed games that handed out XP under any number of systems that were NOT based off of dead carcasses left to rot under a merciless sun.

You make that sound so appealing, Spike! We never left our dead carcasses to rot! We ate them. :O

-clash

Hi, Spike!

Quote from: SpikeYour OP sounds like something dug out of an archive from the early nineties on some LAN server or something.

How about dug out the "archive" of my Jr High MERP playing days, circa 1988-89? I wasn't speaking hypothetically in my example. That really is a way that I played with my friends. And while it does veer close to the two-decade mark, compared to the late 70s experiences that Geezer, Calithena, and others have been talking about lately, it doesn't feel all that "old-skool" to me. Christ, am I really that old?

Anyway, I picked that example because it was particularly stark and easily described, but I think that general phenomenon continues forward to my present play. The details are different, sure; it's certainly not always about merely "killing", but the fact remains that i haven't seen a lot of games that support a diversity of play goals through their reward mechanics the way that i'd like them to. Doesn't mean they suck, or that they don't work for someone else, but they don't work for me. Things havew been improved, sure--my poor little MERP Scout would thrive much better as a 3.5 Rogue with Bluff and Diplomacy--but it still doesn't quite get there for a number of reasons, like for instance, the focus on "encounters" for rewards.

Also, you seem to be hanging up on the "kills on a per character basis" bit, which ain't the point. That's mainly an  artifact of the example and the system used (we marked down our own kills and crits for the GM, by the way). But I think I've clearly explained why lump goals dont' do it for me--it's not really a reward for what *I* want to do with my character, it's just a reward for hangin' around chipping in. The flexibility of something like TSoY means that I can get rewards for specific things that I work into the game through my contributions, so if I can hit my vengeance issues, or protective feelings, or lust for fame, into the goblin fight, I'll get lots o' bonus points and everyone's had a more entertaining time than if the fight was "y'know, just a fight." And that flexibility means I don't even have to stick with the "party moves everywhere in one big lump, has mostly the same experiences and faces the same challenges" model at all if I don't want to.

Does that clarify what I'm getting at?

Peace,
-Joel

If ya ate all yer kills, ya weren't kill'n enough... I'm just sayin'.

Mel:

Yeah, that is old skool. There seemed to be a real explosion in RPGs in the 90's, and I bought and/or played most of 'em and very damn few seemed to involve any sort of xp per kill basis.

You talk about rewards for 'your' play style.  Sounds greedy to me, when I look around and see a wealth of xp systems, up to and including D&D 3e, where the rewards are set to 'open ended'.

Let me put it this way: There is this guy who is 'in your way'. You can kill him and be rewarded for it.

You can sneak past him and get the exact same reward for it.

You can magic him to sleep and just walk past him and get the exact same reward for it.

You can strike up a long and exciting (for you) conversation with him, converting him to your side and convincing him to join you in the purging of the evil overlord/cult/whatever past him and... wait for it... wait for it... get the. Exact. Same. Reward. For. It.

What, exactly, do you need a special 'I talk my problems out' reward for?

ANd that's just D&D.

Looking at Shadowrun (a notoriously violent game dating to 1989) you get one karma for showing up. One karma for roleplaying well, one karma for completing the mission and a raft of random other 'one karma' rewards for a variety of things... amazingly enough... Not.One.Single.Reward.Is.Based.On.Number.Of.Kills.

And that, Mel, is pretty much standard for xp systems designed after 1990 or there abouts. Longer than many of my friends have been gaming, and longer than many of the gamers at my local gaming store seem to have been alive.

Dead topic. Unless you are a grognard. You are fighting a battle long since over. Guess what: Your side won.  Quit bitching and enjoy the spoils of victory.

(fer the record: I was never on the 'other side', I hand out xp entirely at random...)

Dude. . .you're not listening. I'm saying "XP per kill" is at best a side issue. I know that D&D gives you rewards for sneaking the same as negotiating the same as fighting the same as magicking. But it's still based more or less on "the encounter." It's rooted in the idea that the DM will prepare something to happen, you as a player will encounter it, negotiate it however you see fit, and get experience for overcoming it. There's nothing in there about players seeking out their own situations, driving the "stuff happens"through their character actions. Oh, sure, it happens all the time, in all kinds of games, and it's awesome. And a good and intuitive GM can certainly give XP awards for stuff the players do that's not on his encounter list. But it's not supported, bolstered, and supercharged in the rewards the way I like.

I'm not fighting any battle, man. I'm just here to say "Hey, I just had this cool new realization about this thing I like, what do people think of it, and are there any particular games that do this fun thing in an intriguing or different way?" If you're here for that conversation, great, otherwise,I'm fine with the conversation being dead.

Peace,
-Joel

Playing a game "wrong", at least not like described in the rules, is probably an unfortunate starting point to complain about system.

With Mers/Rolemaster giving EP for all actions according to their difficulty, but unconnected to overcomming a hinderance it looks like a system that does civil characters comparativly well.

Quote from: MelinglorDude. . .you're not listening.

I'm not fighting any battle, man. I'm just here to say "Hey, I just had this cool new realization about this thing I like, what do people think of it, and are there any particular games that do this fun thing in an intriguing or different way?" If you're here for that conversation, great, otherwise,I'm fine with the conversation being dead.

Peace,
-Joel

No. You aren't. I'm telling you that for the last 20 years or so there have been a veritable HOST, a LEGION of games that have come out that reward XP under an entirely different premise than encounters or what is planned out. Look again at my description of Shadowrun's Karma: you get points for being there, for roleplaying and for a host of 'cool stuff'.  Sure, you CAN straightjacket it down to  the point where you only get stuff for following the GM's breadcrumbs, but you'd actually have to work pretty hard at breaking it to do so.

D&D rewards on 'encounters' alone. IF you decide that an encounter has to be purely DM generated, that is between you and your GM, I,for one, am pretty damn sure the game itself doesn't declare that.  You seem to be equating poor GMing with poor rewards system.

Its that or you are some sort of asshole that thinks everything you do at the table is automatically cooler than anyone elses stuff and game designers should include a line like "melingor gets double XP 'cause he rules!", only you aren't bold enough to just declare it.  A more likely senario is you are attempting through some artifice, to remove the GM from the equation.  

I'll say it again: I play sandbox RPGing. My players do, or do not do, what they want. And If I ONLY gave XP according to what was prepared encounters for them, we'd be stuck at first level for a long motherfucking time. Luckily: I don't have to do that.  I can go: Hrm.. well, convincing Lady Arabella to meet you in the Grotto was a CR.. lets say.. 4... seduction. Cool, Mel gets 200 xp for his awesome seduction... anyone who helped him gets that too.

Or whatever. Not that I particularly would, or my players for that matter, but the point is I COULD... and that is, amazingly enough, what you seem so desperate to clamour for.

Its creating a drama where none is needed. To repeat myself: You are bitching because you won the battle already.

Drama? What drama? Oh, that's right--the drama that suddenly appeared when you entered the thread. You're fucking creating it. Whatever. If me saying "here's one experience that I had that I didn't like so much and here's another experience that I had that I liked a whole lot better" is fighting a battle, then. . .well, shit, man, what kind of conversation ISN'T a battle for you?

Y'know, none of the systems you've named impress me much. Sorry. They're not terrible, and I guess a step in the right direction, but they're kind of "meh" for me. If you like them, you could say why without yelling at me. I've described a system that does it for me in a way that excites me. If that's insulting to you or somehow picking a fight. . .grow up.

Yeah, I know it's possible to improvise a lot of XP stuff and that's cool. I certainly prefer it to "sticking to prepared encounters." But I'm describing something that goes a step beyond, at least for me--it lends flexibility while adding clarity. Instead of head-scratching and assigning rewards on the fly or by best guess, it lets a player go "I pursue this--bing, XP!" And yeah, it does remove the GM from that particular equation, but that's only to free him up to preside over other fun elements of the game. It just seems like smart delegation to me, 'cause it puts the reward-monitoring on the shoulders of the person paying the most attention to a desired pursuit: the player pursuing it.

I like that a lot. You may not. It's all good.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorOh, sure, it happens all the time, in all kinds of games, and it's awesome. And a good and intuitive GM can certainly give XP awards for stuff the players do that's not on his encounter list. But it's not supported, bolstered, and supercharged in the rewards the way I like.

Well, here's the thing. You're talking about "a good and intuitive GM" - you're talking about someone skilled in roleplaying who roleplays, and how they do better at roleplaying than someone who's not skilled at it.

And this is supposed to condemn the rules for us?

Consider football. Nothing in the rules of football themselves say that the game should be interesting or fun. Nothing says there should be a back and forth between players who handle the ball well, who don't fumble it. What we have in football is that when players are skilled, it's interesting to watch; when players are crap, it's boring or painful to watch. But there's nothing in the rules to support that, the rules don't make good and interesting play happen - the skill of the players does that.

Likewise, in a roleplaying game session. So you say, "oh but the rules don't support a good and intuitive GM" - well, the rules of football don't support a good and intuitive football player. But good play's the whole point of the thing. The rules are just there as background.

 "Oh no! If you follow the rules, it doesn't support Beckham and Pele's play!" What the fuck? Are the rules supposed to turn us all into Peles? It's not going to happen.

There are GMs with common sense who respond to what the players do and are interested in and who reinforce it when it's done well (give xp, etc), and there are GMs with no fucking clue whom no amount of rules can help, and will probably hinder.

I don't know what it is about gamer geeks that makes them so unwilling to look at what's actually happening around the game table, with the actual people there, instead looking at the dice or rules or whatever. Just as football players need to be fit and agile, so too do gamers need to be socially-skilled and creative. You can have fun even if you're useless, but it's more fun if you're not. No rules, no xp system, can take away the need for a bit of common sense, social skills and creativity.

Quote from: MelinglorYeah, I know it's possible to improvise a lot of XP stuff and that's cool. I certainly prefer it to "sticking to prepared encounters." But I'm describing something that goes a step beyond, at least for me--it lends flexibility while adding clarity. Instead of head-scratching and assigning rewards on the fly or by best guess, it lets a player go "I pursue this--bing, XP!" And yeah, it does remove the GM from that particular equation, but that's only to free him up to preside over other fun elements of the game. It just seems like smart delegation to me, 'cause it puts the reward-monitoring on the shoulders of the person paying the most attention to a desired pursuit: the player pursuing it.

Convince my boss that I should be in charge of my own raises.

Okay, seriously?  This whole idea makes me go "What the fuck?", because it sounds like "I get to give myself as many XP as I want because I decide how well I did."

XP masturbation.  A first time for everything.

Or here's perhaps another way of looking at it.

When multiple people are looking at your postings and ALL saying "WTF?" and NOBODY is agreeing with you, it's time to reevaluate your presentation of your ideas.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWell, here's the thing. You're talking about "a good and intuitive GM" - you're talking about someone skilled in roleplaying who roleplays, and how they do better at roleplaying than someone who's not skilled at it.

And this is supposed to condemn the rules for us?

I'm not even sure what this last sentence means. But in any case, I'm advocating something supplemental to roleplaying skill. Something that I feel can both bolster a poorly-skilled roleplayer's experience, and enhance the play of highly-skilled roleplayers even more. I don't really understand what your objection to that would be; it sounds a lot like objecting to using a smoothly-running machine because someone who's 'skilled in machine operating" would be able to use any machine just fine no matter how clunky or rusted-up it might be.

Quote from: Kyle AaronConsider football. Nothing in the rules of football themselves say that the game should be interesting or fun. Nothing says there should be a back and forth between players who handle the ball well, who don't fumble it. What we have in football is that when players are skilled, it's interesting to watch; when players are crap, it's boring or painful to watch. But there's nothing in the rules to support that, the rules don't make good and interesting play happen - the skill of the players does that.

Likewise, in a roleplaying game session. So you say, "oh but the rules don't support a good and intuitive GM" - well, the rules of football don't support a good and intuitive football player. But good play's the whole point of the thing. The rules are just there as background.

Well, yeah. But surely you're not asserting that any ol' rules are as good as any others? I mean, a lot of it comes down to preference, sure, but generally speaking you're using the rules of football or D&D or whatever because they're fun for you. If someone were to propose a rules change the rules of football for something they think will be more fun, you wouldn't tell him "well, the skill of the players should give you that fun, why change the rules," would you?

Another reason for adopting rules is consistency of shared understanding, but that's still all about fun--you want to avoid the dampener on fun that clash of mismatched expectations can cause. If you want to, say, ditch the fouling rules and play "anything goes" cutthroat style, you can do that as a group and maintain the shared expectation thing. And while you're always free to mod the rules to a sport in this way, it still helps to have a clear understanding of what it is you're modding from--if you wante4d to use your hands in football, you'd mod it, but there'd never be any question of what the football standard is on handing. A set of rules that said "never use your hands, or do, whichever, work it out amongst yourselves" would be a pretty ass set of rules.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't know what it is about gamer geeks that makes them so unwilling to look at what's actually happening around the game table, with the actual people there, instead looking at the dice or rules or whatever. Just as football players need to be fit and agile, so too do gamers need to be socially-skilled and creative. You can have fun even if you're useless, but it's more fun if you're not. No rules, no xp system, can take away the need for a bit of common sense, social skills and creativity.

Uh, what is it about a "what I like about rules" thread that compels you to rush in crying, "why are you focusing on the rules instead of the players?" It reminds me of Maude Flanders wailing "will someone please think of the CHILDREN?" Everything we're discussing here concerns "the children" (or in this case the social aspect of roleplaying); just 'cause we don't stop every other sentence to affirm that RPGs are social doesn't mean it's being ignored or neglected. Give it a rest.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Old GeezerConvince my boss that I should be in charge of my own raises.

Okay, seriously?  This whole idea makes me go "What the fuck?", because it sounds like "I get to give myself as many XP as I want because I decide how well I did."

XP masturbation.  A first time for everything.

Well, for one thing, this all happens during the session, the instant the Key requirement is fulfilled. So you're not just adding up after the session, "well, I'd say I acted on my Key of Vengeance, oh, 50, 60 times tonight, wink wink." And ideally you're not sitting in your corner of the room quietly ticking off XP points, you're declaring "hah! kicked his ass! Key of Bloodlust, 3XP!"

I have to admit, though, that I've reread the book on this point, and it's not as clear as it should be. I'd say the game's intent is intuitively clear, but it really should have a simple "when you hit a Key of for XP, say so," statement. This is 'cause the Keys are at their best when they're socially reinforcing everyone's game pursuits. Sure, you're not guaranteed interest--you can go "unrequited love, awesome!" and everyone can just shrug and move on. But by drawing attention to what matters to the individual players, I feel you run less risk of stuff that might engage the group falling through the cracks. If it's masturbatory, at least it's a circle jerk. :D And the system at its finest, encourages and helps people to play off of each others' interests, moving from wankfest to full-on orgy. (Hey, if youse guys are gonna speak in metaphors, I can at least run with it!)

Quote from: Old GeezerOr here's perhaps another way of looking at it.

When multiple people are looking at your postings and ALL saying "WTF?" and NOBODY is agreeing with you, it's time to reevaluate your presentation of your ideas.

Uh, sure. If you think I could present my ideas better, I'm all ears for pointers. In the meantime, I'm trying my best. Strikes me that progress is impeded at least in part by uncharitable and hasty assumptions--"Hey, I like X way of doing stuff, it's fun." "Fun? But doing X in y way is just masturbatory." "Uh, but I'm not talking about Xy, I'm talking about Xz." If you could, like, ask, "wait, are you talking about Xy?" Then I could clarify and we could proceed. But having to "defend" myself over and over again against ephemeral "charges" is a pretty cruddy way to have a conversation.

Plus:

Quote from: One Horse TownToo 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.

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.

Quote from: alexandroI 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).

I wouldn't say everyone's saying "WTF."

But y'know, turning this into an "us vs. them" issue and painting me as wacko is SURE the way to have an enlightening and informative discussion.

Peace,
-Joel

Mel:

You don't like those systems: Fine by me, but I think you miss my point. What you describe sounds quite a bit like Deadlands/Seventh Sea, where the player earns extra XP when his disadvantages affect play.

But amazingly, you probably don't like that either, despite being exactly what you just described.

I'm sorry if you thought I brought the drama, but sometimes when someone is saying something, you just have to reach over and slap some sense into them.

Like: If you said Chinatown in San Francisco was created to house the WWII Japanese Marines that invaded California from Submarines the week prior to Pearl Harbor? Yeah, I'd slap you. Twice.

You cry about how XP systems are so crappy and broken for supporting your style of play? Then use 20+ year old examples, and explicitly refuse to acknowledge 15+ year old examples that do exactly what you ask? Yeah, I'ma slap you.   Don't make me drive down to Portland tonight! :p  My hand is itchin' for some use....

Hi, Spike,

Actually, it sounds to me like 7th Sea (which I'm not familiar with at all) is in the ballpark. It seems to stop sort simply in that it specifically keys Disads, just as BRP stops short in specifically keying Skills. Not that that's bad; it just lacks that extra flexibility of letting you set your own unique parameters, be it merit, flaw, motivation, relationship, or whatever. Still, Disad-driven XP sounds really cool.

I've given a set of criteria--what games do this thing--and I'm evaluating any examples based on that standard. I simply don't think that most of your examples really do the thing I'm talking about. Other examples do. One Horse Town's accomplishment-based system does. Levi's Hoard does. 7th Sea and BRP, as Elliot pointed out, come close. So this isn't a matter of anything so fluffy as whether I "like" a given game, the way I "like" chocolate ice cream or pizza. I've tried to be clear about my evaluation of every game referenced, and why it doesn't work for me.

I think a big part of the problem is that you're reading me as "Waah, XP systems are teh suck!!!1" which is not what I'm getting at. I'm saying that a certain approach hasn't met a specific desire of mine, and I found an approach that does. I'm being as positive as I can, while the guy screaming at me in gigantic caps is accusing me of "bitching" and "crying" and "fighting a battle." At which point I throw up my hands.

Peace,
-Joel

In Runequest advancement is entirely in the players' hands.  You choose what to use in game, what you use successfuly gets improvement rolls, over time you improve in those things you choose to use.

Sure the GM can hammer you by ensuring that some situations never arise, but assuming you're not playing with a dick in practice it means advancement is entirely in each player's own control.

Same holds for Classic Traveller incidentally, different mechanism but again the GM has no meaningful input into advancement.

I tell you, these new fangled swine games disempowering the GM, where will it end eh?

Edit:  I see BRP was addressed above, what's the disconnect in this thread then?  The most common solution is for the GM to control advancement, but many games don't follow that approach and that's been true since almost the dawn of the hobby.  Where's the argument here?

Quote from: MelinglorAt which point I throw up on my hands.

Fixed yer typo.

Quote from: MelinglorHi, Spike,

Actually, it sounds to me like 7th Sea (which I'm not familiar with at all) is in the ballpark. It seems to stop sort simply in that it specifically keys Disads, just as BRP stops short in specifically keying Skills. Not that that's bad; it just lacks that extra flexibility of letting you set your own unique parameters, be it merit, flaw, motivation, relationship, or whatever. Still, Disad-driven XP sounds really cool.

Mel: I got no idea what you are talking about with this keying thing. Seriously.  I do know that previous Runequests... pretty much all runequests actually, put advancement into the player's hands. MRQ lets you raise the skills and/or attributes you want regardless of what you used fer bogs sake. 'Course, as I recall you pretty much get a flat Xp award (you played? Boom, here's your xp) which is as non-judgemental as you get.

Seventh Sea, btw, doesn't even have 'disadvantages' per se. You actually BUY these xp giving 'disads', which are player defined and pursued. Things like ' Affair with the Duchess lvl 5' gives you five Drama Dice/XP every game your affair either crops up (you arrange a liaison with her) or hinders you (the Duke sends his men to cut your face off).  YOU the player (not the GM) set what the specific problem is, and you, the player are primarily responsible for pursuing your 'subplot'.  How much more 'keyed' do you need it to be? Am I missing something here?

Lets pull back a bit to Deadlands: you can take a 'Hankerin', that is an Addiction to alcohol.  As a player you never, not even once, have to actually say 'my character gets drunk'.  But if and when you do, each and every time you do (obviously with a common sense limiter) and it affects play, bam! You get a 'poker chip'... the XP mechanic (and plot point...) rolled into one, very similar to the drama dice in 7th Sea. Again, it is the players call on what disads to take, and which ones to use in game, or not use.

Now: If you think these are 'almost there', look more into them and actually give us your refined version of what an Xp system should be. Don't just come in here wailing and tearing your shirt that XP systems don't make you happy in your pants.  DO something constructive with it. I, and I suspect most members of this site, don't cotton to pointless bitching.  May I point you to the description of this subforum:

QuoteThis isn't a place to just chitchat about theory, its where we USE it!

So, unless you have a specific xp system/refinement to discuss...

nWoD does the same thing with its flaws. You can get as many as you want, but they're worth exactly nothing until they come up in play, at which point you get 1 xp. With the xp system the way it is, 1 xp is a benefit, but far from overpowering.

Quote from: James McMurraynWoD does the same thing with its flaws. You can get as many as you want, but they're worth exactly nothing until they come up in play, at which point you get 1 xp. With the xp system the way it is, 1 xp is a benefit, but far from overpowering.

Thanks, James. That sounds cool, similar to 7th Sea's system.

Quote from: BalbinusWhere's the argument here?

Beats the hell out of me. See below.

Thanks for the info, by the way.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: SpikeDon't just come in here wailing and tearing your shirt that XP systems don't make you happy in your pants.

There you go again. Where the hell are you getting this connotation from? I don't see "wailing," "crying," or any such thing in my posts.

The "specific XP system" is what I've been discussing from Post 1: Shadow of Yesterday's Keys. I will cop to falling down on the job as far as actually linking and/or quoting the system I was talking about. I was lazily assuming familiarity with the system, based on hanging out forum-wise with a lot of folks who are familiar. That was a mistake, which come to think of it, even bit me in the ass on Storygames.

So to rectify: Keys (http://tsoy.crngames.com/Characters#Keys) are the XP System (http://tsoy.crngames.com/Crunchy_Bits#Keys) from The Shadow of Yesterday (http://http://tsoy.crngames.com/Main_Page). The relevant bit from the text is:

QuoteKeys are the primary method of increasing a character's abilities. These are goals, emotional ties, or vows a character has. By bringing these into the story, the player gains experience points (XP) she can use to advance the character, increasing pools and abilities, or learning new Secrets and Keys.

Again, an example will illustrate this better:

Key of Conscience
    Your character has a soft spot for those weaker than their opponents. Gain 1 XP every time your character helps someone who cannot help themselves. Gain 2 XP every time your character defends someone with might who is in danger and cannot save themselves. Gain 5 XP every time your character takes someone in an unfortunate situation and changes their life to where they can help themselves. Buyoff: Ignore a request for help.

The buyoff shown above is a special bit about Keys. Whenever a player has a character perform the action shown in one of the buyoffs, the player can (this is not mandatory) erase the Key and gain 10 XP. Once bought off, a character can never have the same Key again.

There's a whole list of Keys ranging from "killin' stuff" to "pining for my unrequited love," plus the encouragement to modify them or write your own. And just a note, 1 Advance costs 5 XP. Most things in the game cost 1 Advance to raise, but Abilities ("Skills," more or less) scale up in cost.

So there it is. The actual system I'm discussing, the practical application of the principles I'm talking about.

Quote from: SpikeMel: I got no idea what you are talking about with this keying thing. Seriously.  

I'm not really sure what you're confused about here. Would "specifically tying into skills" be more clear? I'm just saying that the systems in question are less flexible than the system I'm talking about, because while they generate XP specifically from using skills or disads or whatever, this other system lets you make up your own criteria, which can revolve around skill use, OR disad-type afflictions, or ambitions, or whatever. That's all. Not "Your trad system iz teh SUCK!" Just "well, that's pretty cool but I still like the flexibility better over here.

Quote from: SpikeSeventh Sea, btw, doesn't even have 'disadvantages' per se. You actually BUY these xp giving 'disads', which are player defined and pursued. Things like ' Affair with the Duchess lvl 5' gives you five Drama Dice/XP every game your affair either crops up (you arrange a liaison with her) or hinders you (the Duke sends his men to cut your face off).  YOU the player (not the GM) set what the specific problem is, and you, the player are primarily responsible for pursuing your 'subplot'.  How much more 'keyed' do you need it to be? Am I missing something here?

OK, that sounds a lot closer to what I'm talking about, actually (the key phrase being "player defined"). But I'm not familiar with 7th Sea, so I didn't know all this until you told me. Are you interested in communication, or just berating me?

See, here's the thing (And Max, I think this addresses your post as well: The point of this thread isn't "Old Skool vs. New Skool." Spike, you're getting hung up on the fact that I used an example of an old game, and trying to portray me as claiming that no game since then has done what I want. I'm just trying to explain what I like about reward systems, and consequently what I like in a reward system. In the OP I described a system that I like and why, and asked for other examples of systems that achieve a similar effect. All posts to that purpose have been welcome. This whole "Whaddya MEAN no systems in the last 20 years have achieved this affect, you fucker?!" avenue is not. That's not what I said. The age of a given system is incidental to the purpose of this thread. I'm eager to look at any and all game systems that address this, from any era of the hobby.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorThe "specific XP system" is what I've been discussing from Post 1: Shadow of Yesterday's Keys. I will cop to falling down on the job as far as actually linking and/or quoting the system I was talking about. I was lazily assuming familiarity with the system, based on hanging out forum-wise with a lot of folks who are familiar. That was a mistake, which come to think of it, even bit me in the ass on Storygames.

So to rectify: Keys (http://tsoy.crngames.com/Characters#Keys) are the XP System (http://tsoy.crngames.com/Crunchy_Bits#Keys) from The Shadow of Yesterday (http://http://tsoy.crngames.com/Main_Page). The relevant bit from the text is:


There's a whole list of Keys ranging from "killin' stuff" to "pining for my unrequited love," plus the encouragement to modify them or write your own. And just a note, 1 Advance costs 5 XP. Most things in the game cost 1 Advance to raise, but Abilities ("Skills," more or less) scale up in cost.

So there it is. The actual system I'm discussing, the practical application of the principles I'm talking about.

Okay, that sounds to me a whole lot different from what you were originally talking about.

I will chalk it up to my poor interpreting skills.

Well, for my part I apologize if I was unclear.

Now that you know what I'm talking about, how does it look to you, OG?

Peace,
-Joel

What does :

Quotehese are goals, emotional ties, or vows a character has. By bringing these into the story, the player gains experience points (XP) she can use to advance the character, increasing pools and abilities, or learning new Secrets and Keys.

mean - specifically the bolded part? Who "brings them into the story?"

Well, generally speaking, the Gm and the player in question cooperate to "bring them into the story"--the player picks the Key of course, and pursues Key-related courses of action with his/her character, and the GM section says, "play to the PCs' Keys."

If you're asking about the specific criteria for gaining XP, each Key has conditions listed for it, like the Key of Conscience quoted above. Other examples: Key of Bloodlust, gain 1 XP each time you defeat someone in battle, 3 if they're tougher than you. Or Key of faith, 1 XP when you defend your faith, 2 if you convert someone, 5 when you defend it at great harm. Plus you can design your own or tweak existing Keys. Like my wife played a political radical and invented the Key of the Idealist: 1 XP when she participates in a free market, 2 when she intervenes for someone's freedom, 5 when she defends someone's life (i.e. Life, Liberty and Property :D ).

'Zat make sense?

Peace,
-Joel

I think it's a clear explanation and I appreciate your enthusiasm to explain TSOY and openess to finding out about other systems. The keys mechanic sounds cool.

Quote from: MelinglorWell, generally speaking, the Gm and the player in question cooperate to "bring them into the story"--the player picks the Key of course, and pursues Key-related courses of action with his/her character, and the GM section says, "play to the PCs' Keys."

If you're asking about the specific criteria for gaining XP, each Key has conditions listed for it, like the Key of Conscience quoted above. Other examples: Key of Bloodlust, gain 1 XP each time you defeat someone in battle, 3 if they're tougher than you. Or Key of faith, 1 XP when you defend your faith, 2 if you convert someone, 5 when you defend it at great harm. Plus you can design your own or tweak existing Keys. Like my wife played a political radical and invented the Key of the Idealist: 1 XP when she participates in a free market, 2 when she intervenes for someone's freedom, 5 when she defends someone's life (i.e. Life, Liberty and Property :D ).

'Zat make sense?

Peace,
-Joel

Makes perfect sense, now. I was just wondering, based on the description, how close to OG's "experience masturbation" it was - given the text didn't make it clear who determines if the Keys are brought into play.

It also reminds me of Squirrel Attack! Honestly, if you haven't, check out the way that's structured. Rewards are based on specific goals of the individual characters. So, for example, you have the goals of one Sir Grais DeNwutt, a kind of "paladin" of the squirrels (he fought against he Hawk Reich, after all). His goals are:

QuoteJones Junior must survive the mission: Five points
Each Squirrel that survives: Two points
Recover the Brazil Nut of Jones: Ten points
Each Nut Personally recovered: Three points
Jones Junior Dies: Minus ten points
Each Squirrel that dies: Minus three points

Now his goals differ from Lenny, a slow-on-the-uptake Squirrelferatu, blood draining ability and all:

QuoteKill Jones Junior and feed on his blood. Five points
Each Squirrel that he feeds on: Two points
Finding and returning the Ring of Canus: Ten points
Each nut personally recovered: Three points
Not finding the Ring of Canus: Minus ten points
Not feeding at all: Minus three points

Now Hinter is able to do this because all the possibilities are built into the adventure (Operation: Get Mr. Jones' Nuts).  The other adventure I have (thanks Bill!), "The Pie Incident, Operation: Snatch some Pie," has different goals. For example, Sir Grais DeNwutt now has a goal of "Each Catsassin defeated: Five Points"

So there ya go. I sould note, however, that Goals in Iridium Lite (the rule system underneath Squirrel Attack!) are a method of determining who "won" for the adventure. But I could see this easily being used as a way to award Experience.

I hope Bill is OK with me posting so much about the game and my own interpretation of the Goals....

Quote from: MelinglorWell, for my part I apologize if I was unclear.

Now that you know what I'm talking about, how does it look to you, OG?

Peace,
-Joel

Well, it looks like a variation of "These are the things I want out of the game", which is always good.

Quote from: MelinglorWell, generally speaking, the Gm and the player in question cooperate to "bring them into the story"--the player picks the Key of course, and pursues Key-related courses of action with his/her character, and the GM section says, "play to the PCs' Keys."

Okay, this is the part that I was unclear about and led to my sarcastic response.

Originally it seemed like you were saying "The player picks the keys, and then decides to give himself XP when he decides that he has done a satisfactory job of achieving the keys".  It sounded like something totally unilateral on the player's part.

Cooperation between GM and players is always a good thing.

Quote from: James J SkachIt also reminds me of Squirrel Attack! Honestly, if you haven't, check out the way that's structured.

Cool, James! That sounds like tons o' fun. I have been keen on checking out SA! on general principle.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorCool, James! That sounds like tons o' fun. I have been keen on checking out SA! on general principle.

Peace,
-Joel

My pleasure. Hinter (Bill) is great.

And just to be clear - the specific purpose of those points is not the same as XP, but since we're talking more broadly about reward mechanics...well...there ya go...

One of these days, the kids and are going to play this...maybe before D&D, even...which, coming from me, is saying alot :)

Quote from: Old GeezerWell, it looks like a variation of "These are the things I want out of the game", which is always good.

Agreed. Keys are a quite handy as a big flashing "Here's what I wanna see/do" neon sign, in addition to managing advancement.

Quote from: Old GeezerCooperation between GM and players is always a good thing.

For sure. Keys don't produce or enforce cooperation, exactly, but I think they serve well to. . .I dunno, oil the cooperation gears, so to speak.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorAgreed. Keys are a quite handy as a big flashing "Here's what I wanna see/do" neon sign, in addition to managing advancement.


For sure. Keys don't produce or enforce cooperation, exactly, but I think they serve well to. . .I dunno, oil the cooperation gears, so to speak.

Peace,
-Joel

They provide a concise language for discussion.

Hey, that's a great way to put it! :emot-eng101: Cool!