Quote from: jibbajibba;628326That's quite odd because one of the things I thought was revolutionary from the beinging with RPGs was that it was a game with no winners.

What that basically meant when originally stated back in the day is that there is no mechanically defined winner amoung the players themselves (i.e. it is not a zero-sum game between them).

That doesn't prevent players from introducing their own 'victory conditions' which can be as a hostile to the other players as kill the other PCs.

More typically players think in terms of more cooperative goals and or group success (this was one of the things that drew me to RPGs in the beginning).

These too ran a range, can we make it to level X? Can we make Y amount of gold? Can we save the princess? Can we destroy the One Ring.

I myself like overarching campaign goals like the last two.

Quote from: gleichman;628321It's been a long time since I did aracade play, but most considered hitting the top 5 all time scores 'a win' back in those days.

What people consider a win varies person to person a bit, but I'd call "top x" something of an implicit win state. Not to diminish the achievement or anything.

QuoteHitting the high points...

My general view on losing is that it's something to learn from, and a marker for what needs to be improved. Attempting things with a chance of loss is important, otherwise you're just repeating doing what you know can be done- you may as well watch TV instead.

In gaming, conditions that could be a loss for the PC might be a win in the bigger picture. Other PCs or NPCs would have been saved for example. What this comes down to is that a meaningful sacrifice should be valued.

And sometimes you lose, but put up such a good fight that it's 'worthy of song' just because it was awesome.

Good answer. I'd say that a big part of it is that the option of wining or losing goes a long way to contextualize challenge.

Your second point is somewhat interesting, because RPGs do have multiple methods of wining and losing. Games with character advancement have the death/more power bit, but also have scenario based objectives. When we discuss system incentives we're usually talking about the former, but it's possible that some or even most players care more about the latter.

Quote from: gleichman;628328What that basically meant when originally stated back in the day is that there is no mechanically defined winner amoung the players themselves (i.e. it is not a zero-sum game between them).

That doesn't prevent players from introducing their own 'victory conditions' which can be as a hostile to the other players as kill the other PCs.

More typically players think in terms of more cooperative goals and or group success (this was one of the things that drew me to RPGs in the beginning).

These too ran a range, can we make it to level X? Can we make Y amount of gold? Can we save the princess? Can we destroy the One Ring.

I myself like overarching campaign goals like the last two.

LIke I noted in my post the outcome of not destroying the one ring may well turn out to be as interesting, or more interesting that doing so....

Quote from: beejazz;628329Your second point is somewhat interesting, because RPGs do have multiple methods of wining and losing. Games with character advancement have the death/more power bit, but also have scenario based objectives. When we discuss system incentives we're usually talking about the former, but it's possible that some or even most players care more about the latter.

That's indeed the case, and for me 'scenario' outcome is far more important then power/death results. Which is why I put such a focus on them in judging a campaign.

Quote from: gleichman;628332That's indeed the case, and for me 'scenario' outcome is far more important then power/death results. Which is why I put such a focus on them in judging a campaign.

It prompted me to move towards "quest" based XP. But the first time I tested the concept, someone set the goal to get "more than his fair share" of gold in a one-shot dungeon crawl. It turned out rather odd (more that he did things that weren't IC in his best interest because he wanted to "win" than that I have any problem with pvp).

I have more specific rules about what can be a quest goal now.

Quote from: beejazz;628333It prompted me to move towards "quest" based XP. But the first time I tested the concept, someone set the goal to get "more than his fair share" of gold in a one-shot dungeon crawl. It turned out rather odd (more that he did things that weren't IC in his best interest because he wanted to "win" than that I have any problem with pvp).

I have more specific rules about what can be a quest goal now.

Interesting idea.

Not one I'd want to try as tracking individual goals for a reward in addition to achieving that goal is a level of work that doesn't appeal.

Quote from: gleichman;628338Interesting idea.

Not one I'd want to try as tracking individual goals for a reward in addition to achieving that goal is a level of work that doesn't appeal.

Yeah... had to fiddle with that a while to get it doing what I wanted. If you've got something that works, this kind of houserule likely isn't worth it.

Quote from: beejazz;628333It prompted me to move towards "quest" based XP. But the first time I tested the concept, someone set the goal to get "more than his fair share" of gold in a one-shot dungeon crawl. It turned out rather odd (more that he did things that weren't IC in his best interest because he wanted to "win" than that I have any problem with pvp).

I have more specific rules about what can be a quest goal now.

I do this after doign objective settign for my staff at work.
I allow the PCs to have 3 active personal objectives, which must involve oversoming some challenge or conflict. Then I assign Xp rewards based on the difficulty. I usually reserve it for my amber games where individual goals are paramount.
once you acheive one you can set another or you can let one lapse and take up another.

I also take the big bad and their scheme whatever it might be and assign points for the PCs busting each section, again in Amber terms this is 1-5 XP per step where you can buy another partial power step for 5 points.
So if you uncover who is sending assasins into Amber to try and Kill the king you might get 3xp, if you uncover who is really doing it not the front org you might get 5 and chances are you already got the 3.

The problem with the later method is that you are rewarding players for following your game outline which is a bit railroady which is why i introduced the personal stuff to enable players to totally ignore my plots and the big bad and drive their own plots and agendas and still profit from it.

Quote from: gleichman;628205That's a nice dream in a way, and given my own age I almost wish it was true. But three simple facts tell me that it's a delusion to think that way.

First it's rather well established that raw capability both physical and mental declines with age. It's a problem somewhat offset by experience (which has it's own advantages) but it's still a simple fact of life.

Second, there's also the fact that youth carries with it the excess energy and free time (in our culture) to punch above one's weight class, i.e. put the extra effort in to deal with a level of complexity too great for oneself.

And lastly the truth of 'promotion to one's level of incompetence'. This a person keeps trying more complex systems until they become too complex for him. Rather than admit failure, they hang in there until they can no longer justify the effort and then drop back to where they belong.

All the above are basic truths, and they explain nicely your point about the tendency of aging fan bases.

:rotfl:

It isn't a matter of absolutes or competency levels. I still enjoy playing GURPS and running advanced combat on the hex grid when I'm in the mood for it.

What has changed since getting a bit older is that I no longer need that level of complexity and detail in each and every instance of playing in order to have a good time.

Quote from: gleichman;628205Here's a bonus question for you. Knowing these effects, and knowing that members of the hobby in general seems to be aging- a) what does that mean for the next version of D&D? b) What type of demands would that aging base make of it?

You get a huge number of points for saying:

a) It will be simpler at least in core publications

b) Exactly what the OSR guys have been demanding.

As far as D&D Next is concerned, a simple core is desirable for several reasons. A lot of it has very little to do with old fart OSR enthusiasts.

The issue at hand is the complete newb and the casual gamer. If the most popular and recognized rpg cannot appeal to these groups in some form then it will eventually become a dead system.

The old basic sets were successful because they had widespread distribution, and were easy to just start playing without having to learn hundreds of pages of material.

Compared to the typical board games of the time, 64 pages of material was quite a bit. Once someone becomes hooked on rpgs, games that feature much larger volumes of material are an easier sell. Before that happens, potential rpg players must be transformed into actual rpg players. A fast and simple to learn core system helps immensely with that.

The fact that an established group of old OSR fossils will appreciate it also helps the hobby. These old timers might actually buy and teach a newly published game to new players. You can have all the fancy slick system bells & whistles you want on a game but nothing is more valuable to growing a brand than experienced, skilled GMs who like the system and actively recruit people to play it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;628353The problem with the later method is that you are rewarding players for following your game outline which is a bit railroady which is why i introduced the personal stuff to enable players to totally ignore my plots and the big bad and drive their own plots and agendas and still profit from it.

If it works for your campaign, great.

I'd be concerned with the thought that allowing the players to define their own goals in mechanical terms would result in out of character play to reach them. Goals tend to shift in play as new information is gained and conditions change, I'd hate to stonewall that with a mechanical incentive.

Quote from: jibbajibba;628353I do this after doign objective settign for my staff at work.
I allow the PCs to have 3 active personal objectives, which must involve oversoming some challenge or conflict. Then I assign Xp rewards based on the difficulty. I usually reserve it for my amber games where individual goals are paramount.
once you acheive one you can set another or you can let one lapse and take up another.

 it.

I do this in some of my games as well (if I understand you here). For example in my mafia campaign, i assigned each player a goal that came from the higher ups and asked them to come up with a personal goal. These were two possible ways to get xp. A third way was to tackle other things that arose in play. I found it encouraged people to take a bit more initiative.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;628456I do this in some of my games as well (if I understand you here). For example in my mafia campaign, i assigned each player a goal that came from the higher ups and asked them to come up with a personal goal. These were two possible ways to get xp. A third way was to tackle other things that arose in play. I found it encouraged people to take a bit more initiative.

That's the idea.

Quote from: gleichman;628321My general view on losing is that it's something to learn from, and a marker for what needs to be improved. Attempting things with a chance of loss is important, otherwise you're just repeating doing what you know can be done- you may as well watch TV instead.

In gaming, conditions that could be a loss for the PC might be a win in the bigger picture. Other PCs or NPCs would have been saved for example. What this comes down to is that a meaningful sacrifice should be valued.

And sometimes you lose, but put up such a good fight that it's 'worthy of song' just because it was awesome.

And sometimes you get punked, and that's okay, too.

It pains me to agree with Brian here, but the idea that roleplaying games lack win and loss conditions is just weird to me. What makes them different isn't the absence of win and loss conditions, but the fact that the players all stay in the game and may win and lose several times over the course of play.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;628526It pains me to agree with Brian here...

For a self-aware person, this would be cause to wonder why one would be pained to agree with another. Surely right is right is it not? Should not each idea be judged on its own merits?

Einstein produced the Theory of Relativity, does it pain people to agree with it because he opposed quantum mechanics?

Common ground should be a unexpected and happy thing to find, not cause for pain.

Quote from: gleichman;628451If it works for your campaign, great.

I'd be concerned with the thought that allowing the players to define their own goals in mechanical terms would result in out of character play to reach them. Goals tend to shift in play as new information is gained and conditions change, I'd hate to stonewall that with a mechanical incentive.

I find the opposite setting in game goals, "I want to become governor of Askerlan" "I intend to kill Dr Moonfleet "  etc etc ... actually creates more in character play rather than less and like I said players are encouraged to drop goals that become outdated and take up new ones.
Also worth noting we tend to split them up into small steps to make them SMART.