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. 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!  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 are the XP System from The Shadow of Yesterday. 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 are the XP System from The Shadow of Yesterday. 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.