Kyle's recent thread inspired me on something else.

Most systems reward you for taking certain actions.  Some systems reward you for doing things that you'd want to do anyway (like, if you like killing shit D&D will reward you for following your job).  Some systems let you choose exactly what you'll get rewarded for, and then get rewarded for doing it.

I've met people who think that's a cop-out:  "You just say 'I want my character to be a coward' and then get rewards when you run away?  That's cheating."

Is it cheating?  Or is it just letting people make rewards that are custom-fitted to the cool stuff they want to do?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with player-tailored rewards, but I think for them to not be disruptive, it would require the group to make a consensus regarding the type of game they want to play. If all but one player in the group wanted their rewards to be based on combat and the last one wanted to be rewarded for running away, I think it could be a source of tension, as it could almost be seen as a cheat.

"We only get our bennies if we beat those goblins, all you have to do is duck behind a rock and watch us do it."

Post-modernism. You create your own truth, with as much meaning as anyone else's. In other words: Meh.

Wasn't this ground coverered in levi's thread a few weeks ago about d&d rewards?

Paul Czege blogs an interesting piece of data relative to this discussion in the top post here:

http://www.halfmeme.com/blog/

Since I don't care about rewards in the first place, this isn't addressed to me.

-clash

Hey 'mice -

Would you say that for you, roleplaying is its own reward?

Or do you not even want to grant that much?

The overjustification effect Paul cites in that blog post might actually be marshalled as support for your point of view if you answered the first question in the affirmative.

Just curious, I don't really have a dog in this hunt any more. Pavlov's or otherwise.

I give xp awards for things which contribute to the fun of the group. That is, players showing up on time ready to play, bringing and sharing munchies, roleplaying, bravery, constructive ideas and a journal. Those are all interpreted liberally, so for example if someone makes a webpage or prints off character sheets or brings a CD or something, well they're bringing a kind of munchie, or being constructive; if their character would normally attack this guy who annoyed them but they refrain from it even though they'll be thought a coward, refraining because their character's daughter was there - that's bravery, too; and so on.

I have given xp awards because a guy who was normally stinky came along showered with a pressed shirt. He made an effort to accomodate our wishes, so deserved acknowledgment of that.

Reward them when they contribute to the fun of the group. "Shouldn't they want to do that anyway?" Maybe. But in systems which do have xp, it does no harm to reward that. "No reward for doing what should be normal!" Yes, to make sure it's normal for them!

Quote from: CalithenaHey 'mice -

Would you say that for you, roleplaying is its own reward?

Or do you not even want to grant that much?

The overjustification effect Paul cites in that blog post might actually be marshalled as support for your point of view if you answered the first question in the affirmative.

Just curious, I don't really have a dog in this hunt any more. Pavlov's or otherwise.

Oh, yes! I love RPing, and consider it a reward in itself! I don't want or need any other reward.

-clash

Here's my primitivist view:

I really think that everyone needs to be on the same page with rewards. No individual rewards or indivudal doled XP. You all get awarded for the same activity, agreed upon before play. The reward is the same for everyone involved.

So if the game is about XP, then you all get XP for the same things, and the XP award is a uniform one.

This does wonders for keeping the campaign and the group on track.

I'm not sure how this would apply to other reward systems, but in most traditional games I've relied on this type of standard and had pretty good results.

As long as the players buy into the basic premise of the game, you can basically expect them to ALWAYS be awarded for "what they were going to do anyway".

If I start up a Shadowrun game, what else am I gonna offer rewards for but successful shadowrunning?  Flower arrangement?

It's a moot point.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHere's my primitivist view:

I really think that everyone needs to be on the same page with rewards. No individual rewards or indivudal doled XP. You all get awarded for the same activity, agreed upon before play. The reward is the same for everyone involved.

So if the game is about XP, then you all get XP for the same things, and the XP award is a uniform one.

This does wonders for keeping the campaign and the group on track.

I'm not sure how this would apply to other reward systems, but in most traditional games I've relied on this type of standard and had pretty good results.

Group XP FTW.  Minimizes bookkeeping, keeps the whole group on the same page, makes dropping in new players easier, and leaves no one feeling left out or left behind.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI really think that everyone needs to be on the same page with rewards. No individual rewards or indivudal doled XP. You all get awarded for the same activity, agreed upon before play. The reward is the same for everyone involved.

Well, I get that this minimized bookkeeping (as J Arcane says) and helps to keep people on the same page.  But doesn't it put a great deal of importance on people all wanting the same thing from the game?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I get that this minimized bookkeeping (as J Arcane says) and helps to keep people on the same page.  But doesn't it put a great deal of importance on people all wanting the same thing from the game?

That depends on what you mean by "wanting the same thing from the game", I would think. In my case, I want to be entertained. As far as I can tell, so does the rest of my gaming group. We use the group rewards and have no problem with it. I have been in another group that used group rewards, with a small bonus given to one player in the group each session, with the recipient voted on by all of us at the end. That also worked really well. What do you want from a game that would prompt you to ask this question?

Quote from: SigmundWhat do you want from a game that would prompt you to ask this question?

Different things at different times, of course.  But one example of why I like individual rewards for what I was planning to do anyway is this:  Sometimes I like to be lazy.

Like, yes, I could remember that my character is Vain (for instance) and figure out at every moment what that means.  And that's fun.

But when I'm feeling lazy it can also be fun to just have a little shopping list:  "Get one point/card/widget when you either (a) Lie about yourself, (b) Review your past actions or (c) Push someone else out of the spotlight."  Then I play along, and whenever I start forgetting to play someone Vain (or when I'm stumped for an idea) I do something off of the shopping list and it gets me back on track.

"Formulaic" fiction gets a bad rap by those who want something to look down on, but personally I don't have any trouble getting fun out of a good formula ... especially if everyone can pick their own formula in a way that fits well together.

Sigmund:  Does that help explain some of the reasons I might choose this technique from among the many available (each with their own strengths)?