Quote from: TonyLBWhy can't it be both?  If you go in to a nine-to-five job and give it your all, does expecting a pay-check mean that you aren't really dedicated to your job?  I don't think so, and I don't think that expecting to be rewarded for roleplaying your character is any different.

I know a guy who was a big fan of pipes.  He finally got around to owning a tobacconist.  After that, he still loved pipes, no doubt about it; but it changed him too. He would not be able to speak poorly of a certain pipe because his store sold it; he would see his pipe smoking buddies as potential customers.  Turning your hobby into your work changes it, sometimes in ways that are detrimental to the fun of the hobby.

Likewise, there are going to be players who would roleplay anyways, without a specific reward; and players who if there is no reward at all will not roleplay.
If you create rewards tied to specific actions, you will get the "bad" players (The non-roleplay ones) simply parroting that specific action as much and as often as possible to get their brownie points, so that's not really any great improvement.
on the other hand, the "good players" (the ones who roleplay anyways) would, at best, change the way they roleplay, because they have to keep up with the competition of getting the brownie points from the bad roleplayers. So their gaming will actually end up getting warped and twisted around.

The solution is instead to award xp based on general roleplay, and not specific actions. That way the fakers can't cheat their way through, and the good gamers won't feel like they have to.
It also means the GM isn't put into a position where he's FORCED to give out brownie points for behaviour he feels is sub-par, just because it was technically fullfilling that predetermined action, even if you were doing it like a fucking robot or a little slime just to get your hero point...

QuoteI mean ... do you complain that people who play D&D aren't really interested in killing monsters?  After all, they might just be doing it for the XPs, right?

Actually, I dislike D&D's xp system a great deal.
That noted, its also a little different.
"Going out and fighting the bad guy" is not the same as "rescuing puppies from trees" or "showing your character feels a certain way because that's what gives you brownie points for "playing in character" no matter how poorly you do it".

QuoteOkay.  Also, it works.  Done right it gets consistent results, and folks have a ball at it at the same time.

Say you set your character up so that they get points every time your character sacrifices their interests in the name of forlorn love.  That's something you wanted to be in their character anyway, or else why would you have set your character up that way.

So when you play that character to the hilt, you end up sacrificing for love, which is both what they would do and what gets you points.  You get points.  Everyone else gets to see your character forlornly making themselves miserable.  Everybody wins.

Where's the downside?

The downside is when you end up doing it mechanically like a ham actor or a trained seal, and it becomes about getting some stupid fucking mechanic instead of actually playing the role.

Why do you feel that players need to be rewarded for what, as you claim yourself, they should be doing anyways?
The ones who are doing it already do not need a reward, and the ones who aren't doing it will, if doing it ONLY for the reward, do it in an insipid way that will make your roleplaying less sincere.
And drag down the good roleplayers with them.

More importantly, why do you think that the giving away of xp awards can't be something left vague and general up to the GM's discretion?
That would be the logical way to do things so that the players can't fuck with the system.
But oh, gods forbid it should "disempower" the players, right?
Fuck that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: MaddmanHastur sums it up.  In Buffy you want people doing cheesy one-liners all the time.  In Exalted you want them trying crazy stunts all the time.  These are not bugs, they are features.  They are rather specific to those games and genres though - just because it's cool in one doesn't mean it'll work in another.  They need to be tailored to your game.

Hey, look, I watched Buffy. I liked the show.

The difference is: Buffy had top-notch writers.  Your saturday evening gaming session isn't very fucking likely too. Add to that a mechanic that actually encourages players to constantly try to crack one liners as a basic crapshoot that they hope someone will laugh at, and you end up, instead of a clever buffy emulation, with a horrific crap-fest of epic proportions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you create rewards tied to specific actions, you will get the "bad" players (The non-roleplay ones) simply parroting that specific action as much and as often as possible to get their brownie points, so that's not really any great improvement.

Uh ... why not?  If you're running a political campaign, and a simple reward mechanic is enough to get Crazy Harry (your resident munchkin psyho, or whatever) to put his energy into things like building alliances and fostering subtle whispering campaigns, rather than decapitating his enemies ... that sounds like a great improvement to me.  Not to you?

Quote from: RPGPunditWhy do you feel that players need to be rewarded for what, as you claim yourself, they should be doing anyways?

I don't think they need to.  I think it's a legitimate technique that can help.  It's just one of many possibilities.  If you don't like it, that's cool, you can do other stuff.  Doesn't mean it's an invalid technique though.

Quote from: RPGPunditMore importantly, why do you think that the giving away of xp awards can't be something left vague and general up to the GM's discretion?

It totally can.  It's a time-honored tradition, and I respect it as a technique.

Personally, I find that when I do that sort of thing, people engage me as a person to try to convince me (subtly and sometimes not so subtly) that they deserve the reward.  It sets me up to be judging their play, every single moment.  If I fail to give them an XP reward for something they think is cool then I'm sending a clear message that I don't think it's cool.

Which is fine, as I've said.  It's a technique that works.  Just not one of my personal favorites.  I don't like being in that role.

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, look, I watched Buffy. I liked the show.

The difference is: Buffy had top-notch writers.  Your saturday evening gaming session isn't very fucking likely too. Add to that a mechanic that actually encourages players to constantly try to crack one liners as a basic crapshoot that they hope someone will laugh at, and you end up, instead of a clever buffy emulation, with a horrific crap-fest of epic proportions.

Have you ever tried it?  The rules have rewarded the naturally funny ones while encouraging the less outgoing ones to put more of an effort into it.  One girl in paticular felt she wasn't doing well in that area at first, and she had me cracking up last session.  Also I don't know if it could be said to encourage them to constantly crack one liners, as they're limited to one point per session no matter how many funnies they make.  Also this isn't the only way to get them - playing out drama, getting screwed over by the GM, or just plain buying them with XP.

I use these mechanics in every game, and they do not have the effect you describe.  I've also used them at conventions with gamers I don't know and not seen this effect.  Where exactly have you seen this happen.

Having never actually seen a Buffy game being played, I'll admit that what I'm going on here is supposition based on what you were writing, and what I know about gamers. If your game really doesn't end up being a constant stream of bad one-liners, then more power to you.

RPGPundit

I think there's *some* truth to both positions. I'm not a huge fan of reward mechanics that reward me for something I'm not already inclined to do at all--and if Psycho Harry falls into that category you might get a guy going through the motions under protest.

However: if that happens, something else is already wrong. If someone is showing up for a game an playing in a way that makes it suck for the other players then no matter what the rules or excuse for the behavior is, it needs to be addressed above the game level.

On the other hand, some of these mechanics might encourage me to put more thought into aspects of the game that the specific game is meant to encourage and that could be good a good thing as well.

So it depends on the implementation and the specific group, IMO.

-Marco

Quote from: RPGPunditOf the three, I haven't read hearts & souls, but its closer to Truth & Justice's than M&M's.  Its uncomplicated.

Hearts & Souls is closer to Truth & Justice than anything else I've ever read. H&S influenced T&J somewhat - it's credited in the T&J book - but I don't know how much T&J influenced H&S. H&S was in development for a long time, and T&J was conceived, developed, and released during that span. I suspect not a lot, because they came out within a few months of each other, and H&S was at the end of it's development.

Anyway, they are the only two supers games that ever made me want to play supers.

-clash

Quote from: MarcoI think there's *some* truth to both positions. I'm not a huge fan of reward mechanics that reward me for something I'm not already inclined to do at all--and if Psycho Harry falls into that category you might get a guy going through the motions under protest.

However: if that happens, something else is already wrong. If someone is showing up for a game an playing in a way that makes it suck for the other players then no matter what the rules or excuse for the behavior is, it needs to be addressed above the game level.

Agree completely.  You don't try to solve an out of game problem with an in game solution.  If Joe is being a prick offering 'don't be a prick points' isn't going to solve the fundamental problem.

QuoteOn the other hand, some of these mechanics might encourage me to put more thought into aspects of the game that the specific game is meant to encourage and that could be good a good thing as well.

That's generally how it's worked out for me.  No one really tries to excessively game the system.  People stunt a lot, but they don't try for it with every action in Exalted.  Nor is being funny required in Buffy.  Both just offer a nice bonus if you put the effort in.  It's more of a way of telling the players that such and such behaviour is rewarded in this game.  Every game has actions that are rewarded or punished through the rules, this is just another way to do it.

Quote from: flyingmice. I suspect not a lot, because they came out within a few months of each other, and H&S was at the end of it's development.

Anyway, they are the only two supers games that ever made me want to play supers.

-clash

I only wish T&J had come out a bit earlier when I was still heavily working on H&S (instead fighting layout and editing)--because it would have influenced a few things I'd done. I'm pretty sure of it. Solid game Truth and Justice, a few things I mentioned elsewhere..but other than that solid.

Quote from: MaddmanBoth just offer a nice bonus if you put the effort in.  It's more of a way of telling the players that such and such behaviour is rewarded in this game.  Every game has actions that are rewarded or punished through the rules, this is just another way to do it.

What's happening is with these rules (and it's a real shame the Feng Shui doesn't offer something similar), is that you're giving an in-game reward for making the game more entertaining

That's actually quite profound.  Ok, so it's rewarding metagaming, but if the goal is to ensure that everyone around the table has a good time, then that's no bad thing

And the limits of the stunt are just GM fiat right?  So if they can sell you on it it's fine, but if they can't it isn't?  And the only guide to what will and won't be accepted are their guesses about what kind of stuff you like as a GM?

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a good rule - and there's every chance it works better made up on the fly than it would as an enumerated list the way, say Marvel Superheroes did it.  

But what's absent in all your rules-lite boosterism is a recognition that shifting from a rules-based system to a "GM makes it up on the fly based on his infinite wisdom" system imposes costs on players as well as bringing benefits - which is exactly why we play games with rules in the first place.

Quote from: lacemakerDon't get me wrong, it sounds like a good rule - and there's every chance it works better made up on the fly than it would as an enumerated list the way, say Marvel Superheroes did it.  
.

Marvel had examples, but if you read the rules you'll note it too allows for any power stunt the Player wants that the  GM thinks is fitting derived from the power its based upon.

Pg 16 of the MSH Player's book.
The players will, without a doubt, come up with  and innumerable amount of stunts for their powers

Pag 11 of the Judge's Book

The player comes up with a Power stunt, OKs it with the judge, spends the Karma and tries the stunt.


It was GM's control back then. Some games put more restrictions (Truth & Justice, Mutants and Masterminds) than others.

Such things however in most games (including my own) are not done without some cost. Truth and Justice costs hero points, same for M&M, Marvel has Karma for it. H&S like all other potential setback situations its stressful (thus incurring stress and potential bad stuff happenning--this seems to fit with Johnny Storms Nova power for exampe--does a big stunt, and is setback immediatly by exhaustion, as well as other ones I can name.)

That's a fair point in relation to Marvel Super Heroes Silverlion - I'd forgotten that their list of stunts was only partially enumerated.

You have, however misunderstood what I was saying about costs.  I'm not talknig about whether attempting a stunt costs the player something in game, I'm talkng about whether having a GM fiat system as opposed to a fully or party enumerated system imposes costs on the game as a whole.  In my view it does, which is why have rules rather than just allowing everything to be determined by GM fiat.

Whenever pundit supports a rules-lite - "I just make it up as I go along" - mechanism over a more rules heavy "here is what you can do and here's how much it will cost you" system, whether for power stunts, experience or anything in between, he's ignoring those costs.  That's not to say that rules lite sucks, there are plenty of good reasons not to bother with rules for many in game phenomena, but just that it seems impossible to have a sensible discussion with the pundit about the level of enumeration you want, because he views rules as something you have for their own sake, rather than them providing a useufl framework for the players to predict the world.

Quote from: lacemakerWhenever pundit supports a rules-lite - "I just make it up as I go along" - mechanism over a more rules heavy "here is what you can do and here's how much it will cost you" system, whether for power stunts, experience or anything in between, he's ignoring those costs.  That's not to say that rules lite sucks, there are plenty of good reasons not to bother with rules for many in game phenomena, but just that it seems impossible to have a sensible discussion with the pundit about the level of enumeration you want, because he views rules as something you have for their own sake, rather than them providing a useufl framework for the players to predict the world.

You are discounting the fact that many people ---recognize those costs--and disregard their importance. I wouldn't play Hearts & Souls with a GM I didn't trust. I wouldn't play D&D with a GM I didn't trust. In fact I wouldn't play ANY game with someone I didn't trust to make it fun--I've even quit a few games that became unfun because the GM/player trust was broken.  

Not too long ago I quit a long running game because the GM's had slowly revealed a play bias towards female players, as well as refusal to let things resolve  as appropriate for the flaws of a given character--alone they might not have intruded on trust, together they made things unacceptable.

A bad GM can ruin any game system and the fun had by the players--even going 100% by the rules. Building opposition that is too powerful is rarely 'against' the rules--but a GM can do it.  Interrupting any possible recovery of players resources (say in D&D to get spells) is not against the rules.

The problem if you try and enumerate everything--you either end up with a game missing substantial things people choose to do--because people are creative. Or you severely limit what people can do: which is does not encouraging the broad fantastic strokes of comic book superheroes.
 
I can find issue after issue after issue of "new" things heroes try--these are not things they've tried before, not things established in the backstory as possible, yet when the chips are down they pull this maneuver or that power stunt out--completely new to the comic (sure sometimes they reuse old ones but the FIRST time it appears its new)

You can't really set hard limits on power stunts and record everything down pre-play and have it work like comic books.

Most of the good superhero games recognize this.

I don't disagree with either of those points silverlion - there's always room for gm fiat in game design and in actual game play for that matter, and people can rationally decide that they're happy to play a very rules-lite system, and that can be a good deal for them, even taking into account the costs.

I'll even agree that a bad gm can ruin any system once he sets out to.

But, I'll repeat, the only argument I'm trying to make is that there's a reason we have rules for stuff in rpgs, instead of just playing with a reactive storyteller (best case scenario, or railroader the worst case scenario).  That doesn't mean every new rule is good, or that "I just make that up on the fly" is always wrong, but it means it's impossible to have an argument about optimal crunchiness with someone who thinks "I just make that up on the fly" trumps enumerated rules always and everywhere.

Rules represent (conditional) promises to players about how the world will react to their characters' actions.  That's useful - it allows them to put themselves in the world, and it allows them to plan strategically based on known odds of success.  In practice your rules won't plan for everything.  And the less rules there are the easier a game is to learn and (usually) to play.  That's a tradeoff, and I make no judgment about where people end up on the continuum on any given evening.  But it is a tradeoff.
And the pundit, not conincidentally, loves rules lite systems, decides level advancement on the fly, likes to play political intuige but doesn't like to have any rules for political intruige, decides what people's powers can or can't do on the fly, adds any detailed combat results he thinks are useful on the fly...
In short, the guy doesn't like to make many (or any) conditional promises to his players about how the world will react to their actions.  He's a reactive storyteller (at best), not an administrator of the rules.  And if that's what his players enjoy then great.  But that's a radical, radical stance that I think he hides behind his "I just like D&D just like everyone else" posture.  I'd like to see him be open about what that costs his players, not just what it gains them.