Artificial "reward schemes" matter only to the extent they match what the players actually find rewarding.

When I run a game that has no "level up" business (e.g., Metamorphosis Alpha or Traveller), the players who want that business pass it up. Players who are really interested in doing things jump in and start doing things.

The players in my Metamorphosis Alpha campaign either have not noticed or do not care, or possibly both, that the game has no experience points, no level up, no mechanical cherries to pluck.  They love it because it is so open ended and they can do anything they want without needing to look up a dozen rules first.

Quote from: rawma;854050Well, some players will act counter to what the reward scheme supports, because they're trying to match the expectations of the game's genre in spite of the rules or motivated by a different objective than leveling up; if you made a rule in D&D that characters get nearly as much experience staying home safe as going into a dungeon, some would still go to the dungeon, and a few more would eventually go there, because the reward is having an adventure and not the XP. (Did the LARP players sitting in tents "repairing" their armor come out and do something when the hour was up?)

So some of the reward is the player doing something cool whatever the outcome for the character; in particular the reward for playing Lovecraftian horror is more for the player than the character, who has for whatever reason made a very bad career choice.

They did. There were other rules which forced even more extreme behaviour (up to and including never leaving the tent as their character was the 'anchor' of a chain of summoned beings). These rules were also changed, but that was harder as they had very far reaching effects both in and out of character. The interesting thing about event based games like LARP is you actually get pretty quick feedback about what does or doesn't work and you can adjust the rules between events in an effort to improve them. It's much harder to do that with a more traditional RPG product delivered by a book of rules.

In terms of the wider question, I guess the key thing is 'why do people play this game?' In my experience people choose D&D or similar games as they give you clear progression at 'killing things and taking their stuff' and that's what the game is about for lots of people. When people choose to play CoC it's for the experience or tone of the game; it isn't about having a kick-ass Spot Hidden skill.

Rules definitely drive behaviour in my experience. Are Magica is a fantastic example of this. Mages get more powerful quickest by not going on the adventure, but staying home to study instead. Sometimes the characters have to badger or even pay one of their number to go.*

* If you haven't played Ars Magica, every one has three or more characters, only one of which is a Mage, so this actually works out.

Quote from: dbm;854223The interesting thing about event based games like LARP is you actually get pretty quick feedback about what does or doesn't work and you can adjust the rules between events in an effort to improve them. It's much harder to do that with a more traditional RPG product delivered by a book of rules.

Depends on the LARP.  Our own was a heavily decentralized outfit where the "voters" were the organizers who ran events, and ANYone could decide to run an event, under certain (easily met) stipulations.  Other than individual "eventholders" publishing house rules at their own events, rules changes took place only at an annual off-season meeting.  I've noted that several other LARPs had similar timeframes for rule revisions, and while I haven't played in giant cross-regional LARPs like NERO, Amtgard or Dagorhir, I expect the rate of rules change must involve many voices and be relatively glacial.

By contrast, it's EASY to change a rule in a traditional RPG product: if I want to change a rule in my game, I change it.  Elapsed time, seconds.

Of course, I wouldn't be changing it for every GM, but what would I care?  They play their games, I play mine.

Sure, I was thinking from a 'rules creator' perspective. It's a bit like having the author sat at the table all the time.

The only thing I've seen come close in TTRPGs was 4e's online tools. One of our players had his Avenger nerfed between sessions and we only spotted this when he reprinted his power cards due to levelling up. It was a striking example of how powerful and pervading the tools had become in that implementation.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;853425I don't think this is true at all. Game systems emphasize rules for combat because it is harder to resolve than a lot of other things without such rules. I can adjudicate players baking cakes, talking to NPCs or engaging in trade pretty easily with no rules whatsoever. It is a lot harder to deal with players shooting bows at opponents without combat rules.

Recently, inspired by Gronan, I decided to run a session in Frei Kriegspiel style. Except it didn't have rules for combat, either. I decided what happens based on description, and randomised what I saw fit. Sometimes I'd randomise to hit, sometimes success or failure was a foregone conclusion. Sometime I'd randomise the effect, sometimes I'd decide what would happen in the case of a hit based on the attack and any other factors, and sometimes neither of these were randomised.
Point is, no, we don't need rules for combat any more than we need them for baking a cake.

Quote from: AsenRG;854816Recently, inspired by Gronan, I decided to run a session in Frei Kriegspiel style. Except it didn't have rules for combat, either. I decided what happens based on description, and randomised what I saw fit. Sometimes I'd randomise to hit, sometimes success or failure was a foregone conclusion. Sometime I'd randomise the effect, sometimes I'd decide what would happen in the case of a hit based on the attack and any other factors, and sometimes neither of these were randomised.
Point is, no, we don't need rules for combat any more than we need them for baking a cake.

Need, no.  However, stakes are higher... people rarely die over a cake.  Also, combat is chaotic and weird; bizarre shit can happen.  I use the combat tables for D&D because it helps me mix up the results and relieves some of the burden on me, which is the point of the charts and tables in Free Kriegspiel.

Also it gives rise to situations like my NYC D&D game where 5 1st level PCs found 27 gems and I rolled hot.  Besides leveling up, the large amount of money right off changed the whole campaign because suddenly non-magical gear was no longer an issue.  They also were able to afford some healing potions, which for 1st and 2nd level characters makes a BIG difference.

Quote from: AsenRG;854816Recently, inspired by Gronan, I decided to run a session in Frei Kriegspiel style. Except it didn't have rules for combat, either. I decided what happens based on description, and randomised what I saw fit. Sometimes I'd randomise to hit, sometimes success or failure was a foregone conclusion. Sometime I'd randomise the effect, sometimes I'd decide what would happen in the case of a hit based on the attack and any other factors, and sometimes neither of these were randomised.
Point is, no, we don't need rules for combat any more than we need them for baking a cake.

You can always adjudicate however you want. For you, maybe running combat without resorting to a system of some kind is easy enough. I think the majority of GMs would have a harder time. The point is there is usually a lot more contention around the outcome of combat than cake baking, and it is often harder to fairly determine how throwing a punch will play out without resorting to a system. I've seen plenty of GMs smoothly run a game with zero non-combat rules, I've never seen a combat go smoothly without a combat system being used (and I've been in plenty of games where it has been attempted).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;855681Need, no.  However, stakes are higher... people rarely die over a cake.

"Here's a picture of your friend sitting in an unknown location, all tied up and sitting on a bomb. I'm ready to let it run its course and watch with glee. Even if you could capture me, I'm not going to tell you where he is, and he's going to die when the bomb's timer stops ticking.
However, since I'm a fair-minded person, I'm going to give you a chance. I'm going to release your friend if you can bake me the best cake I've ever tasted, from now until 20:30 PM EDT tomorrow."
We can easily get at least a session's worth of playing out of this.

And come on, Gronan... you've read sources, you know how many duels had started over saying the wrong word to the wrong person or in presence of people that were talking to the wrong person. You know that something as simple as what form of address you're using might be a hurdle to diplomatic negotiations. How many people have died over this?
Way too often, who dies is basically a resolved question before the swords have been drawn, too:).

QuoteAlso, combat is chaotic and weird; bizarre shit can happen.  I use the combat tables for D&D because it helps me mix up the results and relieves some of the burden on me, which is the point of the charts and tables in Free Kriegspiel.

Sure it is chaotic and sometimes it can be weird! But I didn't say I wasn't using tables and charts and stuff, did I? I said there wasn't a systematic way of doing it.

QuoteAlso it gives rise to situations like my NYC D&D game where 5 1st level PCs found 27 gems and I rolled hot.  Besides leveling up, the large amount of money right off changed the whole campaign because suddenly non-magical gear was no longer an issue.  They also were able to afford some healing potions, which for 1st and 2nd level characters makes a BIG difference.

Yeah, and a PC met a non-human spy due to a random table. My point is, I wasn't rolling on the table because I had to. I just felt like rolling three results to see what the PC would meet during a night trip in Livyanu.
Compare and contrast with "roll on the random table when it's the GM's turn in the city" (not an exact quote from Torchbearer RPG, but close enough).

And BTW, Gronan, at least one of my players really liked that;).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;855686You can always adjudicate however you want.

Of course.

QuoteFor you, maybe running combat without resorting to a system of some kind is easy enough. I think the majority of GMs would have a harder time.

Maybe yes, maybe not. The majority of freeform GMs are doing a good enough job running combats that their players are coming for more.
And there are way more freeform players than there are RPG players. Of course, you have no way of meeting those on a RPG forum, but just browse LiveJournal, for example...

QuoteThe point is there is usually a lot more contention around the outcome of combat than cake baking, and it is often harder to fairly determine how throwing a punch will play out without resorting to a system.

Actually no, it's going to be determined in some way, and it's the way the GM says.

QuoteI've seen plenty of GMs smoothly run a game with zero non-combat rules, I've never seen a combat go smoothly without a combat system being used (and I've been in plenty of games where it has been attempted).

While I've seen (and played, and run) enough freeform games that I've seen it going smoothly more often than not. (The Frei Kriegspiel addition was in using dice and tables, even if the dice mean what the GM decides on the spot:p).

IME, it's when people first present you with a rules system and then discard it in favour of the "GM decides" system that you get arguments. Even among my players, the one I know would always insist on sticking the closest to the system we're using, is fine with the GM deciding everything in the game, when she has been notified in advance that the GM decides is the supreme procedure, the system is a GM's aid, and that she doesn't have to learn it!
I can see the point here. I mean, the way rule systems are today, can you imagine reading several hundred pages to participate in a game and then realising they're less important than everything else?
Either way, that's my player that insists on applying the system, houserules included, to the letter. She's actually unusually insistent in this regard, almost an outlier among the players I've seen.
And yet she's also fine with the Referee just refereeing the fights.
Thus, I maintain my previous statement is true. We don't need rules for combat, either. Doesn't mean they don't make our lives easier.

And when we've got a baking contest for the hand of the Prince, or a baking contest to appease the evil witch, or whatever, rules for baking also make it easier. So no, we don't need one of those more often than the others.
And if we created rules on a how-often-you-need-them basis, we'd probably need more rules for using oil even more than we need combat rules:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;854816Point is, no, we don't need rules for combat any more than we need them for baking a cake.

I would agree!

Of course, as any baker knows, baking is the one area of cooking that's intolerant of Do It However The Hell You Want -- you need to measure precisely and follow the directions pretty much precisely.

Quote from: DavetheLost;854107The players in my Metamorphosis Alpha campaign either have not noticed or do not care, or possibly both, that the game has no experience points, no level up, no mechanical cherries to pluck.  They love it because it is so open ended and they can do anything they want without needing to look up a dozen rules first.

Same for Gamma World till around 3rd ed. The new MA does not have a level system either.

Waxing prolix is not really a thing you can do in face-to-face play.  Online it might be okay depending on how long your group is willing to wait and how fast you can write creatively and type.  Then of course there's stuff like play-by-post or play-by-email where you can really let loose if the mood takes you.  However, I think more often than not it's better to leave out the careful descriptions (and this is coming from someone who only knows words like "corbel," "transom," "sconce," "alcove," "atrium" etc. largely thanks to D&D) because D&D is supposed to be a game of imagination.  Sometimes for tactical reasons you absolutely need to establish every feature of a room but if it's not needed, let your players imagine (within reason) their idea of a glorious throneroom or a bustling city or the scary dragon or whatever.  Keep descriptions short and to the point, seriously no more than two lines.

That said I pretty much have no problems getting Metal as All Hell when it's violence time.  Exploding heads and sucking wounds and bulging entrails, "rivulets of blood course down your blade, staining your hands,"  "splayed branches of blood are thrown into the air as your axe bites across his chest with a screech of rent steel," you know, have fun with it.  That's, again, a lot easier online than in person and the latter tends to be more like "seww yeahhh you cut him the fuck open lol."  

As far as sex vs violence.... I think it's pretty much a genre expectations thing.  D&D is a game, at its core, about delving into ruins or caverns and killing weird monsters and taking their shit.  You can use it for other milieus but where it's most comfortable is essentially Pulp Fantasy Heist and War Stories.  Sex doesn't really come into it.  Conan got laid all the time but it was always before or after the actual story of whatever particular adventure, 'cuz it was supposed to be an adventure(!!) not a penthouse letter.

But that doesn't go for blowing your treasure on hookers and booze once you're back in town.  That is literally an intrinsic assumption of the game---Gygax in the AD&D book wrote (paraphrasing) "player characters are assumed to live large and expansive lifestyles and thus should deduct about 100 gp from their fortunes per month."  In other words you are that dude who went into the mountain and killed the Otyugh, you have no problem finding girlfriends in the one-horse hamlet; your 3rd-level ass is basically the coolest most of these pig farmers have ever seen.  So yes, by all means assume your character is having All The Sex in their downtime but roleplaying that stuff out?  I can't see how that wouldn't get incredibly uncomfortable.

Interesting topic. I think in the end it all comes down to group preference, which is informed by roleplaying culture, regional culture, and genre preferences too. My traditional men-only grognards Gurps group used to describe in detail all violence and gory scenes while sidelining everything related to sex. On the other hand my women-included younger to the hobby Vampire group did the opposite, detailing more the sex scenes while fading to black (or red) the violence ones.

Quote from: Itachi;856791Interesting topic. I think in the end it all comes down to group preference, which is informed by roleplaying culture, regional culture, and genre preferences too. My traditional men-only grognards Gurps group used to describe in detail all violence and gory scenes while sidelining everything related to sex. On the other hand my women-included younger to the hobby Vampire group did the opposite, detailing more the sex scenes while fading to black (or red) the violence ones.

I suspected that might be the case, but it was interesting to see how different people view the matter. It's not unusual to see discussions about jargon and techniques for dealing with romance, seduction, and sex e.g. fade to black, lines, veils, and other things. It is far less common see discussions on how different groups manage violence.

Thanks to everyone for sharing.

Quote from: Itachi;856791Interesting topic. I think in the end it all comes down to group preference, which is informed by roleplaying culture, regional culture, and genre preferences too. My traditional men-only grognards Gurps group used to describe in detail all violence and gory scenes while sidelining everything related to sex. On the other hand my women-included younger to the hobby Vampire group did the opposite, detailing more the sex scenes while fading to black (or red) the violence ones.

Well, that makes sense once the issue is resolved.  I don't want to fade to black if that bugger is still trying to stick a sword in me.  On the other hand my combats have never been more descriptive than "You hit him for 5 HP, he's dead."

I never liked Sam Peckinpah as a director.

And I'm afraid if somebody wanted anything more sexually explicit than "he/she accepts your offer" I would start channeling Cheech Wizard for my sex scenes:  "I sticked it in her mouf and she went oog."

But my "explicit description of combat" is stuff like "I hit him on top of the head so hard he shits his own liver," so it evens out.