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?

Nope. That's a false path of the forgies.

Gaming is not a sacred act or a psychological "need". It's just fun.

The thing normal human people want from any playable game is just "to play it". Anything over and above that is either personal and probably undefinable (in any case not worth talking about) or just starry-eyed puffery. Or we aren't talking about normal human people.

Quote from: TonyLBDifferent 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)?

Not really, no. This seems to me to be explaining methods you use to try to stay in character while playing a game, but not why you seem to believe that group rewards would "put a great deal of importance on people all wanting the same thing from the game".

If your group enjoys individual awards, then rockin', there's nothing at all wrong with that... it might even be called "more realistic" because different people are going to advance in skill and ability with various tasks at different rates depending on their natural ability to learn and apply what they learn in practical ways. However, in our games we find it more useful to have our characters advance in experience at more or less the same rate. This also prevents newer or less immersive players from being left behind or feeling "less than" because they are consistently gaining less experience than those of us who have been playing 20+ years or just have more of an ability to "get into" our characters. We don't consider it a competition (not saying you do either), we're just there to have fun.

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?

Roleplaying is a group activity.  I see no reason not to reward the group collectively when it succeeds, whether that success is in game in the form of a quest, or out-of-game in the form of the lot of us having a good session.

Generally unless a player is just flat out not contributing to the game, like not showing up, or wandering off in the middle of the session, they gets the XP.

Quote from: J ArcaneRoleplaying is a group activity.  I see no reason not to reward the group collectively when it succeeds, whether that success is in game in the form of a quest, or out-of-game in the form of the lot of us having a good session.

Generally unless a player is just flat out not contributing to the game, like not showing up, or wandering off in the middle of the session, they gets the XP.

My tastes differ in this regard.  I get bored with group play means group reward.  There's only so many ways you can dress up the Dragonlance Companions without having the player feel their characters are just a cog of the group.  I want the players' characters to have individual goals, individual resources, and to feel they are individually competent.  

Some RPGs provide tools for the player to accomplish this, others rely on the player and GM working together to accomplish it by communicating their desires.

Quote from: GunslingerMy tastes differ in this regard.  I get bored with group play means group reward.  There's only so many ways you can dress up the Dragonlance Companions without having the player feel their characters are just a cog of the group.  I want the players' characters to have individual goals, individual resources, and to feel they are individually competent.  

Some RPGs provide tools for the player to accomplish this, others rely on the player and GM working together to accomplish it by communicating their desires.

Why can't you have both--group XP and individual rewards?  One thing I really liked about the 2E reward system was how it broke individual rewards down by classes.  You complete an adventure, everyone gets 1,000 XP.  Your mage casts a powerful spell to overcome a foe or your thief unlocks the cell door to free the party, you get extra XP.  I find that extremely satisfying, especially from a GM's POV.  No one can ever feel slighted by receiving fewer XP than others because the guidelines for what you have to do to receive XP are clearly written.   (Does 3E do that?  I've never run it.)

As a player, though, I tend to agree with Clash--if I'm having fun at the table that's reward enough for me.

Pete

Quote from: TonyLBKyle'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 it's cheating, but nor do I think it adds anything to my life.

But then I don't find reward systems useful, it's a game, playing is itself rewarding.  If it isn't then we play something else.

Mechanically people confuse rewards with advancement mechanics, well, that's harsh as for many people these are rightly linked but for me there is no necessary correlation.

I ran Qin for the second session Monday night, everyone is going to get xp next week.  That's not a reward, it's an advancement mechanic, the only reward element is that you don't get xp for sessions you don't turn up for but really that's just because it doesn't make sense to advance if you weren't in play.

The reward is the fun at the table, xp are for advancing your character, if I had to give out xp to reward people for playing I'd get another hobby.

YMMV etc.

I find the indie emphasis on reward mechanics overly Pavlovian for my tastes, I play because I enjoy it, others in my group likewise, to take a phrase utterly out of context the play's the thing.

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?

No, not in practice.

For a start many systems with xp let you spend them to taste, so if Bob wants a talky character he may buy up stuff to let him talk more effectively (I'm going to avoid the whole do you rp or roll for social stuff debate here and I would ask others to do likewise, it's just an example), Mary likes fighting so buys up combaty stuff, Sue likes to sneak and do arcaney things so buys up stealth and magic.

Other systems don't necessarily have xp, play anything BRP based and you naturally go up in the stuff you used meaning people advance in the areas they spent time on in play.

But to be honest Tony, I'm not sure I understand the question entirely, I can't see any reason why we should have to be on the same page in order for me (if GMing) to give everybody equal xp.  That's exactly what I normally do, I give everybody the same, I don't see that as making any statement at all about what people want from the game (and people in my group do I think have different mixes of what they want, like in every group I ever played with).

If anything I think it assists people getting what they want, as they don't have to compromise it to get xp candy from me because they did what I think is what they should have done (which is basically what most roleplaying awards come down to).

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.

That's how I run systems which use xp.

And to be honest, I want my players to do stuff they think is fun in play, I don't want them doing stuff for xp, that way lies accepting a less fun game for some metareward which I don't think is a happy path to travel.

Quote from: BalbinusBut to be honest Tony, I'm not sure I understand the question entirely, I can't see any reason why we should have to be on the same page in order for me (if GMing) to give everybody equal xp.

'kay, I'll try to clarify.

Suppose that you give XPs for killing monsters, and nothing else.  And suppose that at least some players view the XPs as something worth seeking ... not merely an accident of the ongoing story, but something that they'd like to maximize.

Those people are going to go out and kill monsters, right?  And there's really no recourse for them to (say) seek XPs by internal politics, short of convincing everyone to change the XP schema to include that.  As it stands, a session dedicated to internal politicking is a session with no XP reward for anyone.

So if everyone's on the same page about killing the monsters, you're golden.  Everyone kills the monsters, everyone gets the XPs, everyone's hapy.  But if they're not on the same page then at least some of them are decreasing the amount of XPs that the party as a whole gets every time they do their non-XP-earning thing.

Does that make sense of what I was thinking when I asked about people being on the same page?

Quote from: BalbinusThat's how I run systems which use xp.

And to be honest, I want my players to do stuff they think is fun in play, I don't want them doing stuff for xp, that way lies accepting a less fun game for some metareward which I don't think is a happy path to travel.

I can see that, but I always looked at it more like you're getting rewarded (XP) for excelling in your chosen field, which essentially makes you even better in that field.  Mages get more points for doing magey things, thieves get more points for thieving, fighters for fighting, etc.  I've seen it make a thief more willing to sneak up on a dangerous enemy and a mage more willing to use his most powerful spells (rather than hoarding them).  

What I don't like are arbitrary rewards systems:  100 XP for roleplaying your character's concept well, 200 XP for good roleplaying, 300 XP for being entertaining and making everyone laugh, etc.  I think this pits the GM vs. the players in the worst kind of way, because guess who gets to decide whether or not you roleplayed well?  I've seen this cause a ton of bad feelings in certain games (I'm talking to you VtM) to the point where I automatically create class/powers-based reward systems for every game that doesn't have them.  I find it makes my job a lot easier and keeps people from feeling singled out.  

Pete

Quote from: TonyLB'kay, I'll try to clarify.

Suppose that you give XPs for killing monsters, and nothing else.  And suppose that at least some players view the XPs as something worth seeking ... not merely an accident of the ongoing story, but something that they'd like to maximize.

Those people are going to go out and kill monsters, right?  And there's really no recourse for them to (say) seek XPs by internal politics, short of convincing everyone to change the XP schema to include that.  As it stands, a session dedicated to internal politicking is a session with no XP reward for anyone.

So if everyone's on the same page about killing the monsters, you're golden.  Everyone kills the monsters, everyone gets the XPs, everyone's hapy.  But if they're not on the same page then at least some of them are decreasing the amount of XPs that the party as a whole gets every time they do their non-XP-earning thing.

Does that make sense of what I was thinking when I asked about people being on the same page?

You're thinking too micro-level.  

Go macro.

Quote from: TonyLB'kay, I'll try to clarify.

Suppose that you give XPs for killing monsters, and nothing else.  And suppose that at least some players view the XPs as something worth seeking ... not merely an accident of the ongoing story, but something that they'd like to maximize.

Those people are going to go out and kill monsters, right?  And there's really no recourse for them to (say) seek XPs by internal politics, short of convincing everyone to change the XP schema to include that.  As it stands, a session dedicated to internal politicking is a session with no XP reward for anyone.

So if everyone's on the same page about killing the monsters, you're golden.  Everyone kills the monsters, everyone gets the XPs, everyone's hapy.  But if they're not on the same page then at least some of them are decreasing the amount of XPs that the party as a whole gets every time they do their non-XP-earning thing.

Does that make sense of what I was thinking when I asked about people being on the same page?

It does, that sounds though like a truly pants xp system.

Why?  Because if everyone pursues their fun then some people advance and some don't, depending on whether their fun overlaps with what gets xp or not.

On my approach, everyone gets the same, kill monsters, don't kill monsters, whatever.

Essentially, I award xp in xp systems for mere attendance, because xp drives advancement and advancement is part of those games.  I don't see it as related to reward, or perhaps more accurately I choose not to link advancement and reward because I think that would distort behaviour in a way that I wouldn't find fun.

That said, I don't think any contemporary system is quite that focussed on xp awards, that would be a flaw in game design more than anything else.  I can't think of any post AD&D examples, I'm sure they exist but even back in the day that was really a peculiarity of one game only.

Quote from: pspahnI can see that, but I always looked at it more like you're getting rewarded (XP) for excelling in your chosen field, which essentially makes you even better in that field.  Mages get more points for doing magey things, thieves get more points for thieving, fighters for fighting, etc.  I've seen it make a thief more willing to sneak up on a dangerous enemy and a mage more willing to use his most powerful spells (rather than hoarding them).  

What I don't like are arbitrary rewards systems:  100 XP for roleplaying your character's concept well, 200 XP for good roleplaying, 300 XP for being entertaining and making everyone laugh, etc.  I think this pits the GM vs. the players in the worst kind of way, because guess who gets to decide whether or not you roleplayed well?  I've seen this cause a ton of bad feelings in certain games (I'm talking to you VtM) to the point where I automatically create class/powers-based reward systems for every game that doesn't have them.  I find it makes my job a lot easier and keeps people from feeling singled out.  

Pete

I dislike arbitrary systems of the sort described here too, when the rules suggest that I change them to my tastes because again to me that is making advancement a Pavlovian feature by which I am given tools to make players dance to my tastes.

When I want my players to dance to my tastes I point a gun at them, it's more honest.  Sometimes I shoot near their feet shouting "dance monkey, dance", but I digress...

The excelling in field thing, I give each player say 500 xp, choosing to spend it to excel in their field or choosing to spend it on something else I see as a matter for them.

I too understand better what you mean Tony, and if I were to play a game where killing things was the only way to gain xp for advancement, I might agree with your reasoning. The thing is I don't know anyone who awards xp for only killing stuff anymore. In our group, no matter what game we're playing, we grant xp for overcoming challenges, be they martial challenges, social challenges, info-gathering, etc.

..and if it's a uniform reward that everyone gets as a group, you totally don't have any of these problems.