PDA

View Full Version : Game Theory - XP - Rewards, Realism, Power-Ups



Quertus
2018-10-06, 10:21 AM
This idea spawned from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570239-Worst-REAL-house-rules-you-ve-used).

XP are used for a lot of different things. They are used to reward certain behaviors, to Incentivize following genre conventions, the group's play style, or the GM's whim.

They are used to simulate character growth, to allow "zero to hero" stories, or gate encounters behind requisite abilities to enforce story flow.

But, the thing that I think needs more attention is that they are also used as Power-Ups. XP makes your character more powerful, more capable.

Really, it would be nice if these things were separated. Usually, they're not.

This is why, in opposition to popular opinion and conventional wisdom I have, in many threads, suggested giving "rewards" to characters who die, who underperform, etc.

If what you care about is balance, shouldn't you attempt to achieve balance by empowering the demonstrated weaker characters, rather than further penalizing them for their weaknesses?

Thoughts?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-10-06, 10:23 AM
In many PbtA systems the primary source of xp is from failing rolls. 1xp per failed roll.

Aneurin
2018-10-06, 10:42 AM
In many PbtA systems the primary source of xp is from failing rolls. 1xp per failed roll.

Does that not just encourage players to attempt improbable things in order to gain more experience by failing at them? It seems like you'd end up with a comedy campaign of players trying to pick locks with table legs, drink down the moon and juggle while blindfolded in order to gain any form of character advancement.

I get the idea; and I think it's great - you learn more from your failures than your successes, and all that - I'm just curious how you avoid the game turning into an utter farce.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-10-06, 11:31 AM
Does that not just encourage players to attempt improbable things in order to gain more experience by failing at them? It seems like you'd end up with a comedy campaign of players trying to pick locks with table legs, drink down the moon and juggle while blindfolded in order to gain any form of character advancement.

I get the idea; and I think it's great - you learn more from your failures than your successes, and all that - I'm just curious how you avoid the game turning into an utter farce.

Every time you fail a roll in PbtA the GM does a bad thing to you. Fail to pick a lock, maybe the door is now trapped and it goes off in your face. Or maybe you make a bunch of noise and some monsters show up.

Also, there's no modifiers for difficulty or variable DCs. If you're trying to do something impossible then you just can't make a roll at all. And you don't roll for meaningless things either.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-06, 11:54 AM
Noitahovi has flaws which can be triggered to give character a disadvantage, if they still succeed they are considered to have overcome that flaw and gain power-ups.

Just one example that this kind of thinking is not new. If I was to list other games which give mercy power-ups for poor performance or handicap your opponents, I'd be here all day.

However, the reasoning you offer at the end of your post is, bluntly, dumb.

Why? Because we don't really care about the character, we care about their player.

If we're handing out mercy power-ups or handicaps for game balance reasons, it's because we want a poorly performing players to be able to have a game with better players. It's something that' s done despite of the characters, not because of them.

The big, character-based reason for rewarding failure is descended from a cliched piece of writing advice. Which says that in order for a character be good and to create an interesting story, they have to be flawed. And so, game designers have gone to create game structures which reward bad in-universe behaviour, because they think that without rewarding players for playing out flaws, everyone will play flawless Mary Sues and be boring.

The only times when "rewarding" weak characters (as opposed to weak players) for "balance" makes sense is when you're still in the play test phase and fine-tuning your game system, or making a bug fix.

Tanarii
2018-10-06, 12:27 PM
Important distinction. Generally speaking, XP is about motivating and rewarding player behavior at the table, not character behavior in-universe. Although the line can be fuzzy. But when you lose sight of it being motivation/reward, it can make for some wierd XP rules that actually motivate/reward behavior that isn't the desired behavior.

Of course, there are plenty of other player motivations. Often getting to play the game is a pretty strong one. Otoh getting XP for actually showing up and participating is a nice reward.

Thinker
2018-10-06, 12:40 PM
7th Sea 2nd Edition ties progression to completing stories. You establish personal stories and the GM establishes a group story.

For players, you start a story by making a statement about your character, e.g., "I failed to save my true love from a horror. I won't allow anyone else to fall victim to this creature." Then, the player comes up with an ending such as, "The horror that killed Bastian's lover lies dead at his feet." Last, the player comes up with a reward, "This four-step story will earn Bastian the 4-point Hard to Kill advantage." You only ever need to know the next step in the story with the rest being filled in during play. So for this story, the player might first need to figure out what the horror even is, which the GM might say requires accessing the Church's Archive at Vestini. The character would write the step, "Research the nature of the Horror at the Vaticine Church's Archive at Vestini." After accomplishing that task, the player might uncover that the horror's true nature is as a daemon who is tied to the spirit of another. The GM and player agree that the next step is to find out whose daemon it was. And so on. The number of steps tells you how big a reward you get - a 4 step story for a 4-point advantage or for rank 4 in a skill.

The GM creates stories for the group, too. Like the player stories, these stories have a goal, steps and rewards. The goal is what the heroes need to accomplish to succeed at the story, but they should be more flexible than the player stories - it should never become unattainable. The GM should tell the players the goal, but is free to leave out details if it is supposed to be mysterious in nature. This helps keep everyone on the right track. The GM comes up with the first step. The GM might come up with the next few steps that needs to be accomplished, but they should be more vague and at this point are mainly just ideas for the GM. Only the next step in the story is revealed to the players. When the players reach the end of a story, they are rewarded similar to a hero story - a four-step story grants a 4-point advantage, rank 4 in a skill (if any are already at rank 3), and so on.

The core rulebook also recommends four types of stories. First, is the campaign type story - typical overarching plot that has many steps along the way with one step being completed each session. Second is the episode story, which is completed in a single session and should be paced around 1 step every 1-2 hours. There's also the character story, a story that revolves around accomplishing a goal for an NPC - fetch a reagent for a wizard, save the princess's birthright, etc. Last, but not least, is the retroactive story, which is when the GM looks back at what the players have encountered or accomplished and realize that there's an unplanned story there. In this case, s/he tallies the steps up and rewards the players. Typically, this should only be assessed over a couple of sessions. The book also recommends weaving the different types of stories together - there might be a 5-step campaign story going on, but after step 2, the players get involved with a 3-step episode story and a 4-step character story. Indeed, the character story might last well beyond the campaign story.

The stories should also come from a place in the game's fiction. If the heroes toppled the tyrannical government of a small city-state, another story can pop up where the city-state is invaded by an oppressor who was only held off before by the strength of the tyrant. Or, if in the course of avenging his lost love, Bastian learns that she wasn't actually killed, but was kidnapped, it might be that his next story is to rescue her.

Pex
2018-10-06, 12:59 PM
You're rewarding failure which indirectly punishes success. A player should not be shamed because his character is effective.

You get experience points for playing the game. What you do in the game is the fun of playing.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-06, 01:07 PM
XP, and all other scoring mechanics, exist to motivate particular game actions. Trying to draw a dividing line between "in-game" versus "in-universe" is fruitless, it's more usefull to look for lines of causation.

But first, a quick primer to Winning and Losing in RPGs:

You win, if you as a player are the same or better off when the game ends, compared to start.

Your character wins, if the character is the same or better off when the game ends, compared to start.

You lose if you're worse off. Your character loses if they're worse off.

The basic assumption often made is that victory conditions for the player and the character align, but this need not be the case.

Example: in a Call of Cthulhu game, your characters would be objectively better off if the mythos never was a factor in their life. But you, as a player, are there to enjoy the feeling of dread in a controlled environment, so you'd be better off if your character is thrown into gruesome scenarios where they'll eventually become insane or eaten by horrors of the deep.

The reward structure of the game exist to define what is better and what is worse. It can even dictate what is winning or losing for a character. But it cannot dictate, only suggest, victory conditions for you, the player.

For example: losing sanity points can be clearly defined as a penalty, and being removed from the game at 0 sanity is clearly losing for the character. But if you, as the player, find the effects of insanity to be interesting to watch, then losing your sanity may in fact be the goal, the victory condition, for you.

But regardless of which way it goes, the in-game rewards and penalties motivate you, the player, to play certain kinds of characters, and for those characters to take certain kinds of actions.

If they don't do that, there's something off. For example, granting players XP for showing up? Yes, it's good to incentivize players to keep showing up, but what's the in-game action this is supposed to create? Furthermore, this really only works if the player is already invested in idiosyncracies of the game and its reward system to begin with. If you want to reward simply showing up, it would be more effective to bake your players chocolate chip cookies. That works for new and old players alike.

Slipperychicken
2018-10-06, 01:32 PM
XP are used for a lot of different things. They are used to reward certain behaviors, to Incentivize following genre conventions, the group's play style, or the GM's whim.


This is a solved problem. Games like shadowrun, runequest/mythras, dnd 5e, and many others have a metagame luck-stat (edge, luck, inspiration) which handles such rewards separately and without impacting character-advancement mechanics. Groups use that for metagame rewards, everyone's happy, no one gets excess advancement resources.

Thinker
2018-10-06, 01:35 PM
You're rewarding failure which indirectly punishes success. A player should not be shamed because his character is effective.

You get experience points for playing the game. What you do in the game is the fun of playing.

That's not accurate. A player isn't shamed for having an effective character. The player is already rewarded for being effective by having a character that accomplishes the tasks that s/he wants to accomplish. Increased effectiveness is not the only reward in RPG's.

Tanarii
2018-10-06, 02:30 PM
You're rewarding failure which indirectly punishes success. A player should not be shamed because his character is effective.
Even though I'm in favor of not rewarding failure, and instead rewarding either success, or at least trying to succeed ... I'm still going to remind you that a lack of a reward is not a punishment.

BarbieTheRPG
2018-10-06, 08:46 PM
When you talk about 'rpg balance', you're actually circumventing player agency. How?

Players want to make decisions that matter. The notion of 'balance' trumps this by the GM keeping the PCs' ability within the same bounds of NPC capability. So, no matter how capable the NPCs are, the PCs are always equal to or superior to anything the NPCs can do. So it becomes akin to pro-wrestling: a choreographed show of how 'good' the PCs are, and how ultimately weak the NPCs are.

If you want that kind of thing, ok. But, creating challenging encounters is all about designing conflicts that the PCs could LOSE. Sure, the characters have a level of talent and motivation, but your NPC attackers should also have a level of talent and motivation.

If you say "The goblins charge you with their short swords!", ok. But what if two of the goblins attack while the other two flank? What if the goblins engage as if they come from a martial community very familiar with warfare?

In D&D/PF, the realism comes from the GM's understanding of the setting and how the NPCs act and react to the PCs. YOU, the GM, decide how easy or difficult an encounter is.

Study combat tactics and writers of the fantasy genre.

JNAProductions
2018-10-06, 08:59 PM
When you talk about 'rpg balance', you're actually circumventing player agency. How?

Players want to make decisions that matter. The notion of 'balance' trumps this by the GM keeping the PCs' ability within the same bounds of NPC capability. So, no matter how capable the NPCs are, the PCs are always equal to or superior to anything the NPCs can do. So it becomes akin to pro-wrestling: a choreographed show of how 'good' the PCs are, and how ultimately weak the NPCs are.

If you want that kind of thing, ok. But, creating challenging encounters is all about designing conflicts that the PCs could LOSE. Sure, the characters have a level of talent and motivation, but your NPC attackers should also have a level of talent and motivation.

If you say "The goblins charge you with their short swords!", ok. But what if two of the goblins attack while the other two flank? What if the goblins engage as if they come from a martial community very familiar with warfare?

In D&D/PF, the realism comes from the GM's understanding of the setting and how the NPCs act and react to the PCs. YOU, the GM, decide how easy or difficult an encounter is.

Study combat tactics and writers of the fantasy genre.

That's not what's meant by balance. At all.

A balanced game means that (at least in a level system) any PC of level X is roughly equivalent in power to another PC of level X.

Yora
2018-10-07, 01:08 AM
Atlantis The Second Age is a Sword & Sorcery game that gives XP for making impressive or challenging rolls. You get the XP regardless of whether that roll succeeds or not. This encourages players to do risky, reckless, and flashy things, which is just what you want to see in that kind of setting.

Slipperychicken
2018-10-07, 01:36 AM
I'm still struggling to understand why anyone's still giving out a meaningful permanent bonus like XP for amusing the group, instead of an impermanent one like a luck point or inspiration. The hobby has solved this problem years ago, if not decades ago.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-07, 02:04 AM
I'm still struggling to understand why game points are preferable to congratulations and chocolate chip cookies. :smalltongue:

Knaight
2018-10-07, 02:17 AM
Even though I'm in favor of not rewarding failure, and instead rewarding either success, or at least trying to succeed ... I'm still going to remind you that a lack of a reward is not a punishment.

It can be, in certain circumstances, but that really isn't one of them. It's like handicaps in competitive games; sure they could technically be looked at as a reward for losing instead of a negative feedback loop to winning that tries to produce more competitive games, but in practice basically nobody thinks of them that way. "You failed, this makes it easier for next time" just doesn't feel like a reward, psychologically.

Coming back to that handicap, "I beat my opponent and now they have a handicap, I've been shamed" is similarly one of those things that I can state in practice isn't something people actually tend to feel.

Floret
2018-10-07, 02:32 AM
Of course, there are plenty of other player motivations. Often getting to play the game is a pretty strong one. Otoh getting XP for actually showing up and participating is a nice reward.

I still don't get why people insist players need rewards beyond getting to play the game for showing up. If players can't make it, that generally has reasons, and no matter how much you reward them for showing up, it won't change that keeping your job will win out.

If you, however, make them weaker in comparison to everyone who didn't have intervening issues, you're just encouraging them to stay away by making the games they can show up for less fun. Lagging behind sucks. (Like, even playing a significantly less min-maxed character than everyone else can suck if that isn't explicitly what you signed up for, even if XP are identical.)


You're rewarding failure which indirectly punishes success. A player should not be shamed because his character is effective.

You get experience points for playing the game. What you do in the game is the fun of playing.

Or sometimes, you get experience points so that the group can face bigger challenges. So that your character can grow more powerful.

Also, how is group xp rewarding failure? And do you really need incentive beyond the results of your characters actions influencing the game to feel good about making them?


Furthermore, this really only works if the player is already invested in idiosyncracies of the game and its reward system to begin with. If you want to reward simply showing up, it would be more effective to bake your players chocolate chip cookies. That works for new and old players alike.

While I do agree, I also feel like the players already invested are also the okes that don't need rewards for showing up least. Or, not at all. Ofc, I don't care about players that don't care about my game so I won't try and drag someone in that doesn't care (Be that about the story, the characters, spending time with the other players, etc.). They're mostly gonna be very unlikely to be a boon to the experience.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 03:23 AM
I still don't get why people insist players need rewards beyond getting to play the game for showing up. If players can't make it, that generally has reasons, and no matter how much you reward them for showing up, it won't change that keeping your job will win out.Actually, I'm a fan of more tailored rewards for creating motivations appropriate to the kind of game you want. The classic example was D&Ds XP for GP, which created a motivation to get treasure with the least possible danger to yourself.

That said, you have to play the game to get those more tailored rewards.

Edit: But my point was if you don't want to create those kind of player motivations, yes, you certainly usually rely on "people want to play the game" as a player motivation in regards to showing up. But some players like that they get a reward for doing so.


If you, however, make them weaker in comparison to everyone who didn't have intervening issues, you're just encouraging them to stay away by making the games they can show up for less fun. Lagging behind sucks. (Like, even playing a significantly less min-maxed character than everyone else can suck if that isn't explicitly what you signed up for, even if XP are identical.)For many games, there's no problem with disparate levels (or whatever measure of character advancement exists), within certain bounds. For example every edition of D&D can handle a difference of about 3-5 levels within a party without issue, depending on the edition.

RedWarlock
2018-10-07, 03:40 AM
I'm a bit fan of the XP-for-failure system concept. In such a system (Mainly PbtA, Monster of the Week being my primary experience) if you succeed, your reward is getting to advance the plot, to continue to act in advancement of your goals. Failure should generally come with some meaningful cost for that loss, but as a consolation, you also get an XP to put towards advancement. (I like the metaphor that your character is learning from their mistakes.)

I really wish there was more XP-for-failure options for D&D-style games. XP-as-victory-motivator is such a backbone concept, though, that it gets hard to promote when you want a growth-based (and not just plot-based) game. (It also works better in a non-initiative system, where the action itself includes its own downside. MotW's both-characters-take-damage function during combat means that your actions are costed against themselves. Doing that with independent monster initiative doesn't reflect the per-action cost as much.)

MoiMagnus
2018-10-07, 04:41 AM
Some XP systems I've tried and my opinion on them:

1) XP for killing monster (in a D&D-like settup).
=> It is gamey, and punish character with bad luck. I don't like it.

2) XP arbitrarily given by the DM at the end of the session (in Warammer 40K).
=> It works fine... let says that was not the main problem of this campaign. That was my first experience with RPG ever, so it helped me to see what the DM was expecting me to do. Though my character ended OP, but the XP was not responsible for that. (the money that allowed me to take an opperation to improve my low HP as a psycher into a huge chunk of HP was more a problem).

3) No XP, synchronised level up arbitrarily chosen by the DM (in D&D setting).
=> That's the default for me now. It forces the DM to find other ways to reward players (usually trough personnal quest, ...), and it does not create unbalance in the team.

4) RP Character progression (in Paranoia). It is adequate for "one-shot session". At the end of the session, you explain to everyone how they progress or regress in the society due to the action taken in the mission.
=> Chances are that characters will have too different progressions for making a second session with them, but that's not a problem since there is only one session. Paranoia is the kind of game where the DM is all powerfull, so having your action succeed (and your current clone not dying) is already a reward for behaving as the DM want you to behave.

5) RP-linked XP (in a narrative system). At the end of the session, there is an "XP distribution". For each character, the team chose one skill where the character progress due to its actions during the session, then the DM chose another skill (or the same) for progression, and lastly the character's player chose a third skill (possibly the same) for progression. Personnal achievement can lead to a 4th XP being given to the character by the DM. For narrative systems, power unbalance is not really a problem, since the "player's social skills" are usually more important than the statistics on its sheet.
=> It really enhance the "realistic" part of the progression, and encourage players to justify their XP choice in a RP way. So that's cool. Unfortunately, the campaign using this system was cancelled after 3 sessions (DM's personnal problems) so I've not tested it in the long run.

I quite like the concept behind "XP-for-failure idea", with two exceptions:
+ I don't want to keep track of XP at the middle of a session. I find that it breaks immersion.
+ I don't want behaviors like "I just need one more failure to be able to buy this skill".

YohaiHorosha
2018-10-07, 08:08 AM
The metaconversation in rpgs is always "what kind of story are we telling"? The way characters improve, therefore, should promote the story you, as a group, are telling.

Dnd tells the story of characters overcoming enemies. Each enemy you defeat improves you as a character. Each DM builds narrative on top of that, but it's still, at it's core, hack and slash. Example: "Hey, buddy, remember the time I killed that beholder." (These examples won't be perfect).

PbtA is about how characters live their lives in strange environments. The apocalypse, as dungeon delvers, wrestlers, monsters in a hierarchical society, masked vigilantes, high schoolers, dragons...list goes on. Failures today lead to future success. However, the story you tell isn't necessarily about besting the strongest enemy, for which you've had to train your entire career for, it's about engaging in a world that you learn to influence. Yes, character improvement is important but it's not the core of what characters are trying to do or the story they're telling. "Hey, buddy, remember when I convinced the boss into letting me fight tonight."

Then you have the games that tell the story of situations, like savage worlds and shadowrun. "Remember when we took on the Alpha Delta company." There's a scenario you resolve, and when it's done, the characters would have improved for having experienced that. Note, it is not about success or failure. Just do it. Living on the sidelines gets you nothing. The stories you tell are of people who run the gauntlet..and find ways to survive. Over time, that gauntlet can be more and more challenging because, admittedly, you've done so many before them.


Then there are games (fate, cortex) that care about situations. It's like episodic television. "Remember everything we had to go through when ABC corp came into town and started ruining everything?" The characters have to engage in the world, and continue to evolve to overcome the specifics of that overarching challenge. Hitting the guy with the THUG tshirt isn't that big a deal, but getting him and his gang to leave town is. Going through all the motions to get ABC corp to leave town is what makes your character better. The little things in between, largely, are irrelevant because that's not the story you're telling.

Ultimately - from a game design perspective, the story you tell is how characters improve their ability to influence the story. Kill the bigger baddie, overcome the more difficult situation (also with bigger baddies and challenges), survive your environment and make a greater impact in the world, or rewrite the status quo.

If we, as players, are chafing at any particular level progression mechanic, it is likely because of one or both of the following:
1) we want to be telling a different kind of story
2) the system isn't rewarding the players for the story it's trying to tell (sometime the GMs failure, sometimes games have design glitches).

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-07, 09:09 AM
The metaconversation in rpgs is always "what kind of story are we telling"? The way characters improve, therefore, should promote the story you, as a group, are telling.

Dnd tells the story of characters overcoming enemies. Each enemy you defeat improves you as a character. Each DM builds narrative on top of that, but it's still, at it's core, hack and slash. Example: "Hey, buddy, remember the time I killed that beholder." (These examples won't be perfect).

PbtA is about how characters live their lives in strange environments. The apocalypse, as dungeon delvers, wrestlers, monsters in a hierarchical society, masked vigilantes, high schoolers, dragons...list goes on. Failures today lead to future success. However, the story you tell isn't necessarily about besting the strongest enemy, for which you've had to train your entire career for, it's about engaging in a world that you learn to influence. Yes, character improvement is important but it's not the core of what characters are trying to do or the story they're telling. "Hey, buddy, remember when I convinced the boss into letting me fight tonight."

Then you have the games that tell the story of situations, like savage worlds and shadowrun. "Remember when we took on the Alpha Delta company." There's a scenario you resolve, and when it's done, the characters would have improved for having experienced that. Note, it is not about success or failure. Just do it. Living on the sidelines gets you nothing. The stories you tell are of people who run the gauntlet..and find ways to survive. Over time, that gauntlet can be more and more challenging because, admittedly, you've done so many before them.


Then there are games (fate, cortex) that care about situations. It's like episodic television. "Remember everything we had to go through when ABC corp came into town and started ruining everything?" The characters have to engage in the world, and continue to evolve to overcome the specifics of that overarching challenge. Hitting the guy with the THUG tshirt isn't that big a deal, but getting him and his gang to leave town is. Going through all the motions to get ABC corp to leave town is what makes your character better. The little things in between, largely, are irrelevant because that's not the story you're telling.

Ultimately - from a game design perspective, the story you tell is how characters improve their ability to influence the story. Kill the bigger baddie, overcome the more difficult situation (also with bigger baddies and challenges), survive your environment and make a greater impact in the world, or rewrite the status quo.

If we, as players, are chafing at any particular level progression mechanic, it is likely because of one or both of the following:
1) we want to be telling a different kind of story
2) the system isn't rewarding the players for the story it's trying to tell (sometime the GMs failure, sometimes games have design glitches).


And if we're not, in fact, "telling a story"?

The Insanity
2018-10-07, 09:31 AM
And if we're not, in fact, "telling a story"?
Then you're playing a role in a game.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 09:32 AM
And if we're not, in fact, "telling a story"?
lol, beat me to the punch.

The metacomversation in RPGs is always "what are our characters going to do in this fantasy environment".

Telling stories is optional.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-07, 09:45 AM
I still don't get why people insist players need rewards beyond getting to play the game for showing up. If players can't make it, that generally has reasons, and no matter how much you reward them for showing up, it won't change that keeping your job will win out.

I can feel the discussion coming a full circle here...

So, here we go again: the argument exists because there are two different tiers of rewards.

The first tier is metagame rewards that exist to get your player interested in the game to begin with. You are correct that these rewards don't function if there's something more rewarding or important than the game going on.

The second tier is in-game scoring systems, such as XP or sanity points, which exist to encourage specific in-game actions.

These only meet at the middle when the second tier has strong enough effect on the game that it directly changes a player's perception of it. Imagine playing soccer without rules for scoring goals - that game's not going to be played similarly to normal soccer and as a result, it will not have the same appeal.

So, clearly, a lot of people believe that certain second tier rewards serve a first tier purpose; whether this belief is justified is another thing entirely. Your own "lagging behind" counter argument is of the same form, just in the negative direction: character advancement as participation reward makes a non-participating player fall behind, which makes further games less appealing to play.


I also feel like the players already invested are also the ones who need rewards for showing up least.

You are not wrong. It boils down to internal versus external motivation. Players who find a game's character advancement system itself interesting, don't need rewards outside of it to come to play; and players who find character interaction or tactical challenge itself interesting, don't need even the in-game reward of character advancement.

Setting up rewards for external motivation is something to do when you're still building up interest and investment.

I mostly say this because it's fundamental to answering one of your other questions:


And do you really need incentive beyond the results of your characters actions influencing the game to feel good about making them?

If the player is not internally motivated, then yes, they need that external reward to feel good.

A classic example would an uninterested person who was dragged to the table by their significant other; actions in the game only have worth to them when they please their significant other. If their SO wasn't playing, they wouldn't be there either.

This loops back to what I said about cliched writing advice and making games that reward flaws: we have this interesting pair of assumptions where a good character is a flawed character, but also that players won' t play flawed characters unless we give them points for it.

Faily
2018-10-07, 09:51 AM
Even though I'm in favor of not rewarding failure, and instead rewarding either success, or at least trying to succeed ... I'm still going to remind you that a lack of a reward is not a punishment.

While I agree that normally a person isn't being punishment because they don't get a reward is true, it's different when it moves beyond single individual to groups because of the psychology involved. Being singled out in a group and being in the minority of those who don't get rewards is a punishment.

Either the reason they don't get rewarded is out of their control (such as failing or succeeding on dicerolls depending on the system) or it is the GM's whim (where the GMs reward XP for what they think is good), which leads to the feeling that they are being punished because others are being rewarded. Because they got ****ty dicerolls. Or that they can't measure up to expectations of the GM. Neither I think is good for a past-time we're all supposed to be a having fun and enjoying.

In my personal experience, having a GM rewarding different levels of XP for "good roleplay" was absolutely a bad experience for me. I felt disheartened when I over the sessions didn't get the bonus reward, or got less than the others. And yes, I felt I was being punished for choosing to play a quiet character, and not acting out and saying lols-worthy stuff all the time compared to the others.

The only times I've added extra XP rewards for good roleplay, I've awarded it to the entire group even if it was just half of them really being great that session. Because I don't want my players to feel disheartened after my sessions, nor start discussions of why they're being punished. Maybe a player felt like they never got a chance in the spotlight, maybe I failed to notice or acknowledge something they did or said, maybe they had a bad day, etc... in the end, I want my players to have fun and I don't want drama.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 09:57 AM
Being singled out in a group and being in the minority of those who don't get rewards is a punishment.


, which leads to the feeling that they are being punishedUnless you're actually being singled out and intentionally punished by withholding XP you were supposed to be rewarded, it's not punishment. It's just victim-hood due to a (literal) sense of being entitled to something you weren't.

Edit: that's not to say that XP reward systems the players don't prefer or enjoy are somehow the players fault. People feel how they feel. But claiming that you are being punished because you expect the system to reward you when it explicitly doesn't isn't actually being punished.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-07, 10:02 AM
And if we're not, in fact, "telling a story"?


lol, beat me to the punch.

The metacomversation in RPGs is always "what are our characters going to do in this fantasy environment".

Telling stories is optional.

I find it more useful to start with "so what kind of a game are we playing?" or "so what are the players supposed to do?"

Whether to tell a story or not, or what the characters will do, are follow-up questions to those. The latter doesn't even need to be a meteconversation, it can just be a conversation between characters.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 10:33 AM
I find it more useful to start with "so what kind of a game are we playing?" or "so what are the players supposed to do?"

Whether to tell a story or not, or what the characters will do, are follow-up questions to those. The latter doesn't even need to be a meteconversation, it can just be a conversation between characters.Those sound more like game design or pre-game questions.

I was thinking in terms of during game play questions. And making decisions about what you want your character to do is the core of most types of roleplaying games.

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-07, 10:36 AM
I find it more useful to start with "so what kind of a game are we playing?" or "so what are the players supposed to do?"

Whether to tell a story or not, or what the characters will do, are follow-up questions to those. The latter doesn't even need to be a meteconversation, it can just be a conversation between characters.


Those sound more like game design or pre-game questions.

I was thinking in terms of during game play questions. And making decisions about what you want your character to do is the core of most types of roleplaying games.

I think we can just agree that it's not limited to "what kind of story are you telling?", and move on, yes?

(We've had the "inherently story, yes or no?" debate before, and we'll probably have it again in another thread.)

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-07, 10:38 AM
Unless you're actually being singled out and intentionally punished by withholding XP you were supposed to be rewarded, it's not punishment. It's just victim-hood due to a (literal) sense of being entitled to something you weren't.

Edit: that's not to say that XP reward systems the players don't prefer or enjoy are somehow the players fault. People feel how they feel. But claiming that you are being punished because you expect the system to reward you when it explicitly doesn't isn't actually being punished.

If everyone but a single player gets XP for their character, I think it's fair for that player to feel/ask "what are you saying I did wrong?", without it having anything to do with entitlement or faux-victimhood.

noob
2018-10-07, 10:38 AM
Some XP systems I've tried and my opinion on them:

1) XP for killing monster (in a D&D-like settup).
=> It is gamey, and punish character with bad luck. I don't like it..
it is not for killing monsters: it is for success in the encounters.
So for example just never going in the room with a lazer and 50000 goblins and saving the world without beating the goblin army just by seeing the architect of the death star on which they plan to put their laser in order to destroy the world and then convincing him to sabotage the death star still nets you the xp for the encounter with the goblin army.

Still it does not makes it less gamey and less punishing for people with bad luck.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 10:38 AM
I think we can just agree that it's not limited to "what kind of story are you telling?", and move on, yes?

(We've had the "inherently story, yes or no?" debate before, and we'll probably have it again in another thread.)
Good point.

Clearly this thread is about rehashing the "XP when you don't show up, yes or no?" debate. :smallamused:

YohaiHorosha
2018-10-07, 10:47 AM
And if we're not, in fact, "telling a story"?

All RP tells a story. It may not be an interesting one, but it's one none the less.

Even your crunchiest dungeon crawler with no plot tells a story of a bunch of adventurers going through a dungeon. They murder everything. Yay! Or they die, boo!

If there's no story to tell, there's no role to play, is there??

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-07, 10:53 AM
Those sound more like game design or pre-game questions.

Obviously they are those too, doesn't mean they can't be asked during play. They're especially relevant if you're learning or testing a new game, because the answers aren't necessarily clear before the game starts.

---

@YohaiHorosha: you are wrong.

You can tell a story, an after-the-fact account, of any sequence of events. This does not mean the story is necessary for the sequence. You need to neither ask nor answer what kind of a story is produced by a game before-the-fact, for a game to begin.

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-07, 10:55 AM
All RP tells a story. It may not be an interesting one, but it's one none the less.

Even your crunchiest dungeon crawler with no plot tells a story of a bunch of adventurers going through a dungeon. They murder everything. Yay! Or they die, boo!

If there's no story to tell, there's no role to play, is there??

To summarize a lot of previous "discussion" on this topic... All RP might well be "telling a story" for you. That does not make that way of understanding RPGs universally true for all gamers, and it is quite possible to RP a "fictional person" doing things in a "fictional world" without telling a story. Telling a story is a deliberate act, and there's more to a story than "some characters did some stuff".

And no, in the context of RPG discussion, "fiction" does not mean and is not synonymous with "story".

And also no, story that happens to emerge is not the same as deliberately telling a story, nor is it the same as the player(s) involved viewing or processing RPGs as "inherently about story".

Continuing to insist that "all RP tells a story" or "all RP is about story" is to insist that you know more about other people's internal experience of the activity than they themselves know.

/end discussion

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 11:09 AM
If everyone but a single player gets XP for their character, I think it's fair for that player to feel/ask "what are you saying I did wrong?", without it having anything to do with entitlement or faux-victimhood.
That's a valid question that doesn't indicate any kind of punishment, if you actually mean "what am I not doing right to get a reward?"

Whereas "why am I being denied an expected reward?" isn't what's happening, unless of course it is what is happened.

For example, let's say you are (to use an example from the post that spawned my tangeant) "choosing to play a quiet character, and not acting out and saying lols-worthy stuff all the time compared to the others." And the DM has told you you will be rewarded for acting out or saying lols worthy stuff. Clearly what you're doing wrong is not doing those things. There's no punishment for that. What would be punishment is acting out or saying lols worthy stuff and not getting rewarded.

And of course, once you know what you are not doing right, you can decide if it's a reward structure you want in the game you are pursuing. If you want rewards for playing a quiet character, or at least to not fail to get rewards because of that choice, then yeah, don't play in that game.

Of course, DM-fiat awards that aren't explained in advance with unclear reward structures that don't actually do what they say say do are an issue on he reward structure side. Such as rewards for "RP". (Not to be confused with actual roleplaying / making decisions.)

YohaiHorosha
2018-10-07, 11:10 AM
All RP tells a story. It may not be an interesting one, but it's one none the less.

Even your crunchiest dungeon crawler with no plot tells a story of a bunch of adventurers going through a dungeon. They murder everything. Yay! Or they die, boo!

If there's no story to tell, there's no role to play, is there??

I don't mean to rehash any, "what is roleplay" or "what is story" conversation. So I will define what I mean so that my intent is understood. (You don't have to agree with my definitions of either, just understand where I'm coming from).

Roleplay - be a character, in a setting, and play it. The player has some amount of agency (not to debate the concept of agency here)
Story - the overarching thing that everyone does through a session of roleplay. The characters, through their actions, make a story.

If you have a character, in a setting, and they do stuff. That stuff *is* the story.

What the story is (adventures delve dungeons, investigate crimes, murder hobos, take down the evil empire) is the core of any game design.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 11:13 AM
Story - the overarching thing that everyone does through a session of roleplay. The characters, through their actions, make a story.

If you have a character, in a setting, and they do stuff. That stuff *is* the story.
This is where your definition breaks down. Doing stuff is not a story. Nor is it making a story.

YohaiHorosha
2018-10-07, 11:17 AM
To summarize a lot of previous "discussion" on this topic... All RP might well be "telling a story" for you. That does not make that way of understanding RPGs universally true for all gamers, and it is quite possible to RP a "fictional person" doing things in a "fictional world" without telling a story. Telling a story is a deliberate act, and there's more to a story than "some characters did some stuff".

And no, in the context of RPG discussion, "fiction" does not mean and is not synonymous with "story".

And also no, story that happens to emerge is not the same as deliberately telling a story, nor is it the same as the player(s) involved viewing or processing RPGs as "inherently about story".

Continuing to insist that "all RP tells a story" or "all RP is about story" is to insist that you know more about other people's internal experience of the activity than they themselves know.

/end discussion

I cross posted a response that sheds light on where I'm coming from.

Tldr: plot, fiction, etc, are irrelevant to the discussion. So we're in concurrence.

To restate in context: Story, as I'm defining it, is the byproduct of what players actually do. Its the answer to the question "what happened at the last game?" Voila, story.

Pleh
2018-10-07, 11:21 AM
If what you care about is balance, shouldn't you attempt to achieve balance by empowering the demonstrated weaker characters, rather than further penalizing them for their weaknesses?

That which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger... til it finally kills you all the way.

But ultimately, I don't think game balance is a question of how we generate equality of outcome between players. It's about generating equity of gameplay; any [x input] has [y% chance] of obtaining [favorable outcome z]).

In D&D, it's pretty direct: any party level X expends approximately 1/4 daily resources to overcome a CR X encounter. The reason D&D isn't balanced is rather because any party X is not necessarily as capable as another party of the same level (and also for monsters of a given CR not being truly equal, nor even a single monster being exactly the same CR against two different parties with different abilities).

XP For Losing is definitely a consolation prize, but that isn't the same as balancing the game. It is definitely balancing the outcomes of a given encounter, but to balance the game itself means balancing the means by which players pursue their preferred outcomes.

The idea behind XP For Losing is that Players will never seek to exploit the mechanic because trying to lose would be counterproductive to their goal, which is to win encounters. But this overlooks the fact that some players aren't looking to win, but to become powerful. To be clear, they do want to win, but they want to win the war, not the battles. They will absolutely take the path of least resistance to greatest power. They'll calculate the optimal sacrifice to benefit ratio and take the biggest loss they can afford to gain the biggest power boost they can attain.

I tend to do XP for milestones, monsters, and commendable roleplaying (even if the latter is a pretty small bonus). I haven't had to worry much about players failing (much less feeling punished by not gaining rewards). Usually, if players are failing in my games, there was an unexpected death in the party, making the compensation of XP a little moot. Can't learn from lessons you don't survive. I could give the bonus to their next character, but that starts making the Consolation of the prize break the 4th wall a bit. My players usually don't want a handout. If it was a poorly DM'd encounter, they'll just want to express the problems they had so we have better encounters in the future. If it was a bad player choice, they tend to prefer to own it and move on. If it's a flaw in their build, they usually take the opportunity to try another build they had in mind and take the other one back to the drawing board.

My players like having a fair chance in the gameplay more than getting the wrinkles ironed out in the aftermath.

YohaiHorosha
2018-10-07, 11:25 AM
This is where your definition breaks down. Doing stuff is not a story. Nor is it making a story.

See my crosspost above.

You don't have to agree with my definition. Don't agree with it all you want. Hate it. That's not the point. The point is that as we roleplay, things happen. Those things create a narrative. Call it what you will. But that narrative, those actions, that play, creates a thing that I call story, which I've found useful in having conversations about roleplay and game design. I'm not here to argue the semantics, so if you understand my concept, call it what you will. I'm not going all "brain damage" on you.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 11:26 AM
The point is that as we roleplay, things happen. Those things create a narrative.
This is not something automatic. Creating a narrative from things that have happened is something you chose to do, not something inherent to roleplaying or things happening.

You're not going "brain damage". You're just adding a step that's not inherent to roleplaying, then claiming it's a natural result of, or inherent to, roleplaying. It's a common error.

Just as I'm not living the story of my life, or creating a story by living it.

Pleh
2018-10-07, 11:38 AM
Let's not hijack the thread with more of the "storytelling" debate. That thread kinda never went anywhere and it's really not the point here.

Suffice it to say that XP For Losing seems to be a more narrative centric choice and may have less applicability to games that don't utilize storycraft.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 12:24 PM
The idea behind XP For Losing is that Players will never seek to exploit the mechanic because trying to lose would be counterproductive to their goal, which is to win encounters. But this overlooks the fact that some players aren't looking to win, but to become powerful. To be clear, they do want to win, but they want to win the war, not the battles. They will absolutely take the path of least resistance to greatest power. They'll calculate the optimal sacrifice to benefit ratio and take the biggest loss they can afford to gain the biggest power boost they can attain.
This makes me think of torchbearer, where the only way to get checks, which are required to rest, is to use your traits (or whatever they're called) against yourself. I think the mechanical options were a choice of lowering your chance of success on a roll or just to flat out break ties against yourself in a contest.

Since resting regularly is necessary to avoid dying, players are required to act against themselves at least once between each rest.

Quertus
2018-10-07, 12:24 PM
When you talk about 'rpg balance', you're actually circumventing player agency. How?

Players want to make decisions that matter. The notion of 'balance' trumps this by the GM keeping the PCs' ability within the same bounds of NPC capability. So, no matter how capable the NPCs are, the PCs are always equal to or superior to anything the NPCs can do. So it becomes akin to pro-wrestling: a choreographed show of how 'good' the PCs are, and how ultimately weak the NPCs are.

If you want that kind of thing, ok. But, creating challenging encounters is all about designing conflicts that the PCs could LOSE. Sure, the characters have a level of talent and motivation, but your NPC attackers should also have a level of talent and motivation.

If you say "The goblins charge you with their short swords!", ok. But what if two of the goblins attack while the other two flank? What if the goblins engage as if they come from a martial community very familiar with warfare?

In D&D/PF, the realism comes from the GM's understanding of the setting and how the NPCs act and react to the PCs. YOU, the GM, decide how easy or difficult an encounter is.

Study combat tactics and writers of the fantasy genre.


That's not what's meant by balance. At all.

A balanced game means that (at least in a level system) any PC of level X is roughly equivalent in power to another PC of level X.

So much to respond to, but let me start here.

Personally, when I think about balance, I care less about "power", and more about "narrative contribution".

But, for either of those types of balance, imagine two new 3e players, who, expecting and desiring balance, choose to play a Fighter and a Wizard - or, better still, a Monk and a Druid. Imagine further that they had the experiences with those characters that most Playgrounders expect.

My contention had been that, in choosing a muggle, the player had been unfairly robbed of the agency to contribute* - that they had lost the game at character creation, lost the ability to have agency.

Yes, I very much want the decisions that the players - and their characters - make to matter. However, I want the metagame layer to matter. If I've intentionally built a strong character, I want those build choices to matter. If I've intentionally built a weak character, I want those build choices to matter. If the whole group builds a strong or weak or fast party, I want those choices to matter. I don't want the opposition artificially scaled up (or down) to match - unless that's explicitly the type of challenge that the party desires.

So, yes, this topic is predicated upon the concept that the party explicitly wants balance - be that balance of power or contribution or whatever - and wants the GM to be involved in the solution, involved in making that happen. That the players have explicitly handed away their agency to solve their own problems - through better build, better player skills, whatever - and want the GM to help make their choice of Fighter or Monk viable.

Under such a scenario, I hope that it is obvious that the GM handing them less XP for their lesser contribution will in no way be beneficial to solving the stated problem.

* Mind you, I don't believe this particular analogy, as I believe player > build > character, or something like that. Still, I think that most of the playground can understand and relate to this particular example.

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-07, 12:46 PM
That which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger... til it finally kills you all the way.

But ultimately, I don't think game balance is a question of how we generate equality of outcome between players. It's about generating equity of gameplay; any [x input] has [y% chance] of obtaining [favorable outcome z]).

In D&D, it's pretty direct: any party level X expends approximately 1/4 daily resources to overcome a CR X encounter. The reason D&D isn't balanced is rather because any party X is not necessarily as capable as another party of the same level (and also for monsters of a given CR not being truly equal, nor even a single monster being exactly the same CR against two different parties with different abilities).

XP For Losing is definitely a consolation prize, but that isn't the same as balancing the game. It is definitely balancing the outcomes of a given encounter, but to balance the game itself means balancing the means by which players pursue their preferred outcomes.

The idea behind XP For Losing is that Players will never seek to exploit the mechanic because trying to lose would be counterproductive to their goal, which is to win encounters. But this overlooks the fact that some players aren't looking to win, but to become powerful. To be clear, they do want to win, but they want to win the war, not the battles. They will absolutely take the path of least resistance to greatest power. They'll calculate the optimal sacrifice to benefit ratio and take the biggest loss they can afford to gain the biggest power boost they can attain.

I tend to do XP for milestones, monsters, and commendable roleplaying (even if the latter is a pretty small bonus). I haven't had to worry much about players failing (much less feeling punished by not gaining rewards). Usually, if players are failing in my games, there was an unexpected death in the party, making the compensation of XP a little moot. Can't learn from lessons you don't survive. I could give the bonus to their next character, but that starts making the Consolation of the prize break the 4th wall a bit. My players usually don't want a handout. If it was a poorly DM'd encounter, they'll just want to express the problems they had so we have better encounters in the future. If it was a bad player choice, they tend to prefer to own it and move on. If it's a flaw in their build, they usually take the opportunity to try another build they had in mind and take the other one back to the drawing board.

My players like having a fair chance in the gameplay more than getting the wrinkles ironed out in the aftermath.

Back to the XP and rewards discussion...

There is a danger in any "reward" system of perverse incentives.

Giving players incentive to have their characters deliberately fail, to always come as close to failure as they can while still succeeding, or do things like the "golf bag of weapons" approach to combat (using a lot of weapons just to get more XP from "checkoffs") are all risks.

YohaiHorosha
2018-10-07, 01:01 PM
This is not something automatic. Creating a narrative from things that have happened is something you chose to do, not something inherent to roleplaying or things happening.

You're not going "brain damage". You're just adding a step that's not inherent to roleplaying, then claiming it's a natural result of, or inherent to, roleplaying. It's a common error.

Just as I'm not living the story of my life, or creating a story by living it.

Semantics. Things happen in game. How you frame it is semantics. I call it story. My posts can be rewritten with the words "the series of events that leads to the overall result." Pick whatever you like.

From game theory perspective, it's the same.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-07, 01:23 PM
That's a valid question that doesn't indicate any kind of punishment, if you actually mean "what am I not doing right to get a reward?"

...

Of course, DM-fiat awards that aren't explained in advance with unclear reward structures that don't actually do what they say say do are an issue on he reward structure side. Such as rewards for "RP". (Not to be confused with actual roleplaying / making decisions.)

This is touching on something I've been wanting to talk about for a while. Namely, transparent versus opaque reward structures and how their effects on game play differ.

In a transparent game, Max wouldn't need to ask the question, because it would be answered by game rules known to every player. For example, when it's an explicit rule that characters of non-participating players do not get XP, because they are not subject to any risks that befall to characters of participating players, that's that. Question answered.

In an opaque game, this rule wouldn't be known beforehand, and the GM might not even explain the decision. These are characteristic of trial-and-error gameplay. It isn't necessarily poor game design, but it creates different incentives.

In a transparent system, rewards imply goals and allow players to plan ahead. If I know each gold piece nets me XP and XP leads to character advancement, now I can search the game map for the biggest treasure.

But what if I don't? Now there's at least one extra step involved. I cannot make concrete goals for character advancement before I figure out how it is done. I might not figure out it at all if I'm not already strongly motivated to either advance my character (in which case I will try lots of different things untill I find what works) or to seek treasure (in which case I'm likely to get the reward as a side-effect of my own goals).

Opaque rewards which are also unpredictable (chiefly meaning you won't get the same reward for same action consistently) downright lower player agency, because the player now cannot make informed decisions about how to advance in the game.

I find that if you desire specific actions from the players, the reward structure should be as transparent as possible. Meanwhile, opaque rewards are only worth it if you're making the reward system part of a larger puzzle. Even more specifically, opaque rewards can be usefull for PvP, because now knowledge acquired through trial and error can be used to gain an advantage or as a bargaining chip for alliances.

Rewards for good roleplaying can fall into any of these categories. If they trend towards opaque and unpredictable, I'd say that's mostly because a lot of roleplayers are bad at defining "good roleplaying", as well as "good" and "roleplaying".

---



Tldr: plot, fiction, etc, are irrelevant to the discussion. So we're in concurrence.

To restate in context: Story, as I'm defining it, is the byproduct of what players actually do. Its the answer to the question "what happened at the last game?" Voila, story.

Even if I were to accept your definition, you're still wrong. Again: a story can be told of any sequence of events, but no discussion of the story is necessary for the sequence to begin.

Also, let me point something out. I said I prefer "what kind of game are we playing?" and "what are the players supposed to do?" to your "what kind of a story are we telling?"

Well it's not just preference. "What kind of a story are we telling?", regardless of how you answer, always implies the question "How?" which in turn reduces to "what are the players supposed to do?". The reverse is not true; I can ask and answer the question, "what the players are supposed to do?", without ever talking about the story you could tell after-the-fact.

Willie the Duck
2018-10-07, 02:11 PM
I'm still struggling to understand why anyone's still giving out a meaningful permanent bonus like XP for amusing the group, instead of an impermanent one like a luck point or inspiration. The hobby has solved this problem years ago, if not decades ago.

This is premised on the idea that this is a problem. There is no clear and obvious better system between permanent and impermanent systems. Nor is it clear that the hobby is moving in a linear way away from a problematic state to a state of solved problems. All of these are positions to be argued for, not shared assumptions one should state as known facts.


I still don't get why people insist players need rewards beyond getting to play the game for showing up. If players can't make it, that generally has reasons, and no matter how much you reward them for showing up, it won't change that keeping your job will win out.

Exactly why the game really needs either rewards or advancement mechanisms is unclear (and to be clear, it doesn't have to have them. Traveller has done fine for more than 40 years with most editions not having characters routinely gain anything other than the money, equipment, information, and social connections they pick up in the course of performing their chosen role/career). I think, in the end, the genuine reason why it has been retained is so that characters can change (mechanically) over time, giving the players differing knobs and levers to pull for differing levels of output. Everything else flows from that need, and post hoc justifications made for the "why" are just that.

Floret
2018-10-07, 05:23 PM
So, here we go again: the argument exists because there are two different tiers of rewards.

I am, especially after reading your examples, not quite sure we can differentiate the two clearly. Or at all. Because XP aren't character motivation.


If the player is not internally motivated, then yes, they need that external reward to feel good.

A classic example would an uninterested person who was dragged to the table by their significant other; actions in the game only have worth to them when they please their significant other. If their SO wasn't playing, they wouldn't be there either.

To be quite fair, this might be why I view these discussions with such bafflement - because I would probably prefer not to have such players in my games at all. Making effort to entertain someone who doesn't wanna be here would just be a waste. Both of us could spend our time more usefully.

If a player isn't having fun but wants to, they can talk to me and we can see how to modify a game. I might even ask if I get the feeling they're bored, but in the end some effort has to come from the player. I'm not gonna stab around in the dark hoping to motivate someone.


Exactly why the game really needs either rewards or advancement mechanisms is unclear (and to be clear, it doesn't have to have them. Traveller has done fine for more than 40 years with most editions not having characters routinely gain anything other than the money, equipment, information, and social connections they pick up in the course of performing their chosen role/career). I think, in the end, the genuine reason why it has been retained is so that characters can change (mechanically) over time, giving the players differing knobs and levers to pull for differing levels of output. Everything else flows from that need, and post hoc justifications made for the "why" are just that.

True. Though I do like advancement mechanisms, they are, in the end, optional. And I would play in a game without them easily enough.

Interestingly enough, for all I have argued for having the same XP my favourite system is PbtA. Which is inherently unequal (But usually roughly similar). Mostly, though, because it takes the matter of advancement and XP out of my hands and I can stop thinking about it.

Seriously, my players are surprised when I can tell them the XP the session a plot ended. And not like, 1 or 3 afterwards. Giving out xp is such a damn hassle... makes me have to worry about pacing of power and ****...

Xp are math. I hate math.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-07, 06:55 PM
I am, especially after reading your examples, not quite sure we can differentiate the two clearly. Or at all. Because XP aren't character motivation.

Yes we can; if you think we can't, it's because you're thinking of RPG idiosyncracy where in-game also means in-character.

It doesn't. That's why I told you to think of soccer for a moment. Soccer has in-game score, rewards and penalties despite not having characters. And there is still an entire different set of reasons why people play or don't play soccer that has nothing to do with those in-game things.

I'm not talking of player versus character motivation - I'm talking of different tiers of player motivation.

Otherwise, same response as to Tanarii: looking for dividing lines is fruitless, it's better to look for lines of causation.


To be quite fair, this might be why I view these discussions with such bafflement - because I would probably prefer not to have such players in my games at all. Making effort to entertain someone who doesn't wanna be here would just be a waste. Both of us could spend our time more usefully.

Anyone who knows anything about it would prefer to have nice bunch of internally motivated players, but here's the thing: your ability to know how motivated people are, and by what, is sharply limited before you actually play with them. Even people who would have some measure of internal motivation rarely just stumble upon this hobby, or any other for that matter, without any external effort to lure them in.

Hence my comments about cookies for new players and building investment. It's possible to turn an unmotivated player into a motivated one, the question is how. If your answer is "but I only want players who already want to play because I don't want to make the effort", great for you, but that's stopping short just before any actually usefull analysis can be made.

Whether your assumption that "you could use your time more usefully" holds is beyond me to tell, but it's not a treshold that's in the same place for every case.

Tanarii
2018-10-07, 08:55 PM
Here's an example of when XP being rewarded for something you can only do by attending a game, be it attending or something else in-game, makes perfect sense: open table games with rotating players.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-08, 03:39 AM
Exactly why the game really needs either rewards or advancement mechanisms is unclear (and to be clear, it doesn't have to have them. Traveller has done fine for more than 40 years with most editions not having characters routinely gain anything other than the money, equipment, information, and social connections they pick up in the course of performing their chosen role/career). I think, in the end, the genuine reason why it has been retained is so that characters can change (mechanically) over time, giving the players differing knobs and levers to pull for differing levels of output. Everything else flows from that need, and post hoc justifications made for the "why" are just that.

Look up a TEDx talk labeled "the Super Mario effect". It refers to and illustrates one good example of a study on how existence of a point system affects player motivation. (Specifically, it shows how penalties to a score halve the number of tries players give to a game on average.)

Now, sadly, despite its title, the talk does not meaningfully analyze Super Mario's own scoring system, which is ascending (=rewards point for advancement). I'll give a separate reference study for that if I can find one.

But the takeaway is this: whether a game gives you score and in which direction has a direct motivational effect on the player. It's the simplest, cheapest way to give feedback to a player, to either encourage or discourage some in-game behaviour.

Tying additional mechanics to a scoring system, like XP has character advancement tied to it, is just essentially doubling the psychological reward. Now the score is not just telling you how well you are doing, the specific score you have is also progressing the game.

This is why scoring mechanics are ubiquitous in all kinds of gsmes, and it's also why XP and levels as concepts have spilled over to games that have little to do with D&D or roleplaying. It's why we're talking about "gamification" in school or workplace environments. There's nothing unclear about any of this.

Sure, you can make a game without any sort of scoring system. But you can just as well build an aeroplane without an altitude meter. We know that scoring systems change how games are played, just like we know what function an altimeter has to plane. The mere existence of things which lack them is a red herring. What you'd actually want to do, is make a version of Traveller with a scoring system and see if that makes it more popular.

Pelle
2018-10-08, 04:00 AM
Personally, when I think about balance, I care less about "power", and more about "narrative contribution".


Having balance in "narrative contribution" is good, but if there's an issue with some players contributing little to the game, rewards that incentives less contribution is bad idea IMO.

Floret
2018-10-08, 04:44 AM
Yes we can; if you think we can't, it's because you're thinking of RPG idiosyncracy where in-game also means in-character.

I'm not talking of player versus character motivation - I'm talking of different tiers of player motivation.

I don't. I'm well aware they are distinct.

But I still don't quite see the different tiers. Stuff that motivates players that is within the rules of the game and stuff that motivates them disconnected from the game?

So, enjoying the gameplay more and enjoying the food and snacks more?

If that is it, I would disagree with your terminology, cause I see them less layered and more side by side (kinds, not tiers, maybe), but accept that they are noticably distinct.


Hence my comments about cookies for new players and building investment. It's possible to turn an unmotivated player into a motivated one, the question is how. If your answer is "but I only want players who already want to play because I don't want to make the effort", great for you, but that's stopping short just before any actually usefull analysis can be made.

My efforts do include making the game as good as I can.

The extra effort to stab around in the dark and try things out on the chance that they might motivate people more? No. I'm not gonna do that. If a player expresses discontent, I will listen. Of course. If a player seems discontent I will ask.

But if my playstyle does not, generally interest players, I fear that the effort to change the game enough to interest them might just change it enough that my other players might loose interest.

As for getting people into the hobby... Telling people about RPGs and making their first games the best they can be does far more in my experience than trying to tailormake things.

Frozen_Feet
2018-10-08, 07:52 AM
If that is it, I would disagree with your terminology, cause I see them less layered and more side by side (kinds, not tiers, maybe), but accept that they are noticably distinct.

Yes, that is it. The reason for my terminology is because I visualize the subject matter in Venn diagrams. Set of motivations created by out of game causes is higher tier because it subsumes and influences more things. If desired it can also be visualized as a pyramid and linked to a hierarchy of needs; that's perhaps the easiest way to realize how a physical reward, such as food, is in a separate tier from a virtual reward, such as game score.

The point here being that the terminology is a by-product of a certain tool used to visualize relations between different motives. It's not exact, there are lots of different words to convey the same ideas.


My efforts do include making the game as good as I can.

The extra effort to stab around in the dark and try things out on the chance that they might motivate people more? No. I'm not gonna do that. If a player expresses discontent, I will listen. Of course. If a player seems discontent I will ask.

But if my playstyle does not, generally interest players, I fear that the effort to change the game enough to interest them might just change it enough that my other players might loose interest.

As for getting people into the hobby... Telling people about RPGs and making their first games the best they can be does far more in my experience than trying to tailormake things.

You're mostly correct. There's just one minor lapse of logic: you've correctly identified that motivating a new player may need "stabbing around in the dark", that is, trial and error.

But trial and error is not tailormaking, if anything, it's usually the opposite.

Tailormaking requires specific knowledge and ability to measure your product. Being able to ask your player what they want and get usefull results is necessary for that.

And the latter half is usually absent with new players. That's what causes trial and error. Roleplaying games are not immune to empiricism. A person who has little or no knowledge and experience with the hobby cannot reason out a good game for themselves. Hence, you need something beyond the game itself to appeal to these people long enough that you can actually do the thing you suggest, tell them what the game is and try it out.

Hence, cookies; that is, something basic that has appeal even if the player has no clue of the game. It's the same in every hobby. If, say, scouts want to hold a recruiting event, there will be free tea and cookies just so the kids and parents will sit down long enough to hear the actual pitch.

I'm not trying to get you to do this, I'm just explaining why anyone would do this at all. In the long run, someone needs to be taking those stabs in the dark, because that's required for innovation and expansion in the hobby. It's not distinct from making the best game you can, it's part of the process.

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-08, 08:46 AM
So much to respond to, but let me start here.

Personally, when I think about balance, I care less about "power", and more about "narrative contribution".

But, for either of those types of balance, imagine two new 3e players, who, expecting and desiring balance, choose to play a Fighter and a Wizard - or, better still, a Monk and a Druid. Imagine further that they had the experiences with those characters that most Playgrounders expect.

My contention had been that, in choosing a muggle, the player had been unfairly robbed of the agency to contribute* - that they had lost the game at character creation, lost the ability to have agency.

Yes, I very much want the decisions that the players - and their characters - make to matter. However, I want the metagame layer to matter. If I've intentionally built a strong character, I want those build choices to matter. If I've intentionally built a weak character, I want those build choices to matter. If the whole group builds a strong or weak or fast party, I want those choices to matter. I don't want the opposition artificially scaled up (or down) to match - unless that's explicitly the type of challenge that the party desires.

So, yes, this topic is predicated upon the concept that the party explicitly wants balance - be that balance of power or contribution or whatever - and wants the GM to be involved in the solution, involved in making that happen. That the players have explicitly handed away their agency to solve their own problems - through better build, better player skills, whatever - and want the GM to help make their choice of Fighter or Monk viable.

Under such a scenario, I hope that it is obvious that the GM handing them less XP for their lesser contribution will in no way be beneficial to solving the stated problem.

* Mind you, I don't believe this particular analogy, as I believe player > build > character, or something like that. Still, I think that most of the playground can understand and relate to this particular example.


Having balance in "narrative contribution" is good, but if there's an issue with some players contributing little to the game, rewards that incentives less contribution is bad idea IMO.

The thing is... there are a lot of campaigns where "ability to contribute" and "character competence" are inextricably linked. When you have a character who is out of sync with the other characters (that is, unbalanced) in their degree of competence, you have a character who is unable to contribute.

First, for these campaigns, there's no such thing as character who has no competence but is still contributing. Whether social, intellectual (skills, ideas, etc), or martial, whether provided by the on-paper stats or by the player via thought and roleplay, the character is providing competence and contribution.

Second, this gets into why it's so aggravating to have that player who routinely wants to play characters who have nothing to contribute, and insists that this inability to contribute is core to the "concept". Whether they wish they were playing something different (maybe a "slice of life" or "literary" or whatever game), or inspired by the mistaken notion that any fictional element can be adapted to RPGs ("I'm going to play a guy like Joxer!").

IMO, deliberate lack of competence, deliberate lack of contribution beyond "filling a narrative trope", is for many campaigns one of the worst things a player can do.

Red Fel
2018-10-08, 09:16 AM
A lot to cover here, so let me do some recapping.

Yes. When a player creates a character who does not or cannot meaningfully contribute - and "contribute" can mean more than in combat - that character is dead weight. It does feel frustrating that such a character would share in the benefits of the more effective party members simply for completing the dual objectives of (1) being a PC, and (2) not dying.

I do these things every day, and have yet to receive a quest reward simply for waking up in the morning.

The question, then, is the logical outcome. And per the OP of this thread, that outcome appears to be, "drop the dead weight." And I agree in principle, but not with the outcome the OP describes.

Here's the thing. When you have a character who does not or cannot contribute - whether in combat, social situations, or even general non-roll-related strategizing - the problem isn't a mechanical problem, but a human problem. You don't solve it with in-game solutions or in-game rewards or punishments, but with out-of-character conversation.

XP is and isn't an in-game construct. It isn't, in that characters aren't aware of or actively working to earn XP, except in a self-aware setting. It is, in that XP is a mechanic with mechanical in-character benefits. Inasmuch as it is an in-game construct, it needs to be a consequence of in-game actions and decisions - be they contributions in a scene, successful completion of a story objective, or simply an arbitrary declaration that the characters level now. It cannot be tied to out-of-character decisions.

I generally don't take issue with the different methods of XP reward. I have problems with an "XP for kills" system, as it basically benefits only a single character type and punishes random bad luck, but when a GM awards XP for completing story beats, or tells the party they level at certain arbitrary times, or simply comments that people get XP in the following ratios, I generally don't have a big issue. Where I have an issue is the award of XP for out-of-character conduct or decisions, like showing up late, paying for pizza, and so forth.

In the case where a character is incapable of contributing in any meaningful way, the problem is a player problem, because the player designed the character that way. The solution isn't to cut off the XP flow, but to sit down with the player to either redesign the character, or to roll a new one, with an eye towards meaningful contribution.

In the case where a character is capable of contributing, but consistently fails to do so, the problem is a player problem, because the player refuses to contribute. The solution isn't to cut off the XP flow, but to sit down with the player and figure out why they aren't contributing, and whether this game - or this table - is the right fit for them.

In either event, cutting off the flow of XP does not incentivize contribution. It prevents it. Taking a character who is non- or under-performing and reducing their XP does not make them contribute more, it makes them too weak to contribute even if they want to. It is, in essence, a passive-aggressive mechanical hammer, an in-game slap in the face in response to an out-of-game problem. It is effectively designed to force a player to retire their character through in-game means, instead of simply sitting down and talking to the player.

That's the point. This isn't about game theory or realism. It's about basic dignity towards one's players. If the character under-performs consistently, the solution isn't a forced obsolescence, but a conversation. Talk to your players.

Pelle
2018-10-08, 09:32 AM
IMO, deliberate lack of competence, deliberate lack of contribution beyond "filling a narrative trope", is for many campaigns one of the worst things a player can do.

And if the player is deliberately not contributing, boosting their character to try achieve balance of narrative contribution isn't going to make the game more enjoyable than encouraging more player involvement.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-10-08, 09:33 AM
[for most problems] the solution [is]... a conversation. Talk to your players.

Mature, adult conversations about things would solve 99.9999% of the problems encountered in RPGs. The rest come from playing FATAL, to which the solution is to stop doing that.

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-08, 09:49 AM
A lot to cover here, so let me do some recapping.

Yes. When a player creates a character who does not or cannot meaningfully contribute - and "contribute" can mean more than in combat - that character is dead weight. It does feel frustrating that such a character would share in the benefits of the more effective party members simply for completing the dual objectives of (1) being a PC, and (2) not dying.

I do these things every day, and have yet to receive a quest reward simply for waking up in the morning.

The question, then, is the logical outcome. And per the OP of this thread, that outcome appears to be, "drop the dead weight." And I agree in principle, but not with the outcome the OP describes.

Here's the thing. When you have a character who does not or cannot contribute - whether in combat, social situations, or even general non-roll-related strategizing - the problem isn't a mechanical problem, but a human problem. You don't solve it with in-game solutions or in-game rewards or punishments, but with out-of-character conversation.

XP is and isn't an in-game construct. It isn't, in that characters aren't aware of or actively working to earn XP, except in a self-aware setting. It is, in that XP is a mechanic with mechanical in-character benefits. Inasmuch as it is an in-game construct, it needs to be a consequence of in-game actions and decisions - be they contributions in a scene, successful completion of a story objective, or simply an arbitrary declaration that the characters level now. It cannot be tied to out-of-character decisions.

I generally don't take issue with the different methods of XP reward. I have problems with an "XP for kills" system, as it basically benefits only a single character type and punishes random bad luck, but when a GM awards XP for completing story beats, or tells the party they level at certain arbitrary times, or simply comments that people get XP in the following ratios, I generally don't have a big issue. Where I have an issue is the award of XP for out-of-character conduct or decisions, like showing up late, paying for pizza, and so forth.

In the case where a character is incapable of contributing in any meaningful way, the problem is a player problem, because the player designed the character that way. The solution isn't to cut off the XP flow, but to sit down with the player to either redesign the character, or to roll a new one, with an eye towards meaningful contribution.

In the case where a character is capable of contributing, but consistently fails to do so, the problem is a player problem, because the player refuses to contribute. The solution isn't to cut off the XP flow, but to sit down with the player and figure out why they aren't contributing, and whether this game - or this table - is the right fit for them.

In either event, cutting off the flow of XP does not incentivize contribution. It prevents it. Taking a character who is non- or under-performing and reducing their XP does not make them contribute more, it makes them too weak to contribute even if they want to. It is, in essence, a passive-aggressive mechanical hammer, an in-game slap in the face in response to an out-of-game problem. It is effectively designed to force a player to retire their character through in-game means, instead of simply sitting down and talking to the player.

That's the point. This isn't about game theory or realism. It's about basic dignity towards one's players. If the character under-performs consistently, the solution isn't a forced obsolescence, but a conversation. Talk to your players.


And if the player is deliberately not contributing, boosting their character to try achieve balance of narrative contribution isn't going to make the game more enjoyable than encouraging more player involvement.


Mature, adult conversations about things would solve 99.9999% of the problems encountered in RPGs. The rest come from playing FATAL, to which the solution is to stop doing that.

I largely agree with the above, about it being a "human issue" rather than a "system issue".

My intent starting out that post was more to dispute the notion that (in many campaigns at least) a character can be grossly "imbalanced" and yet meaningfully contributing. IMO, it's a rare campaign where other players are going to be OK with a character "contributing" by fulfilling the "narrative role" of the useless tag-along, the delusional incompetent, or whatever.

Pelle
2018-10-08, 09:57 AM
My intent starting out that post was more to dispute the notion that (in many campaigns at least) a character can be grossly "imbalanced" and yet meaningfully contributing.

Well, I have played campaigns where one of the characters contributing the most out-of-combat had practically zero out-of-combat abilities. Because the player took initiative and often determined how to overcome problems and which goals to pursue etc.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-10-08, 10:08 AM
I largely agree with the above, about it being a "human issue" rather than a "system issue".

My intent starting out that post was more to dispute the notion that (in many campaigns at least) a character can be grossly "imbalanced" and yet meaningfully contributing. IMO, it's a rare campaign where other players are going to be OK with a character "contributing" by fulfilling the "narrative role" of the useless tag-along, the delusional incompetent, or whatever.

I definitely agree that if there is gross systemic imbalance then narrative balance will be hard to come by (and will often feel forced). Especially in systems that assume generalized competence. You can have a character that's good at one subsystem but less so for others and be fine as long as the players collectively are fine with it. My current 5e game has me being the face. I'm not optimized for combat, but I'm mostly there for support (healing + debuffing, etc). I'm not dealing tons of damage (unlike the evocation wizard whose back-to-back point-blank fireballs smashed an encounter really hard or the paladin with crit smites), but my abilities are useful in an understated sort of way. Out of combat (especially in social situations) I take the lead. That's fine because the others aren't so socially oriented with those characters.


Well, I have played campaigns where one of the characters contributing the most out-of-combat had practically zero out-of-combat abilities. Because the player took initiative and often determined how to overcome problems and which goals to pursue etc.

I find the biggest source of "the load" issues come from willful refusal to participate. A character may not have the most tools but they can still contribute out of combat (since not everything needs an explicit button). But if the player just plain refuses to engage with a particular facet of the game (like playing a total non-combatant in a game with significant combat or a stupid uncultured barbarian who doesn't do social things in a social-focused game) then they'll feel out of whack. But there again, the solution is to change the character through OOC discussion rather than trying to give in-game incentives in either direction.

Pex
2018-10-08, 12:01 PM
In my 2E days there were a couple of DMs who held back on XP for players who played the game wrong. In one case you had to justify why you should get bonus XP for things you did. I thought it a normal part of the game. Even I docked XP once as a DM, but I felt awful doing it and reversed my decision the next game. Knowing this is wrong was a hard lesson to learn, part of my training for no longer accepting I have to play with a tyrannical DM if I want to play.

Thinker
2018-10-08, 12:19 PM
IMO, it's a rare campaign where other players are going to be OK with a character "contributing" by fulfilling the "narrative role" of the useless tag-along, the delusional incompetent, or whatever.

I agree that it won't work in most games. There should be mechanics that support this sort of character. Monster of the Week does this by having a character that represents the normal person exposed to the supernatural for the first time. They're way over their head and prone to getting into trouble. Other characters can gain XP when they protect him and he gains XP when he is captured by a monster. He also gets useful abilities to accidentally find useful things, can assist as though they had rolled a full-success, and can recklessly rush into danger and gains some benefit from it. The archetype isn't totally useless, but is good at moving the spotlight to others.

I think that's what people usually want when they play useless tag-alongs. They don't want to worry about being the knight who slays the dragon, but want to be the one who enables the knight to slay the dragon. A lot of games simply don't support that behavior or they're hidden mechanical options.

Pex
2018-10-08, 06:40 PM
I agree that it won't work in most games. There should be mechanics that support this sort of character. Monster of the Week does this by having a character that represents the normal person exposed to the supernatural for the first time. They're way over their head and prone to getting into trouble. Other characters can gain XP when they protect him and he gains XP when he is captured by a monster. He also gets useful abilities to accidentally find useful things, can assist as though they had rolled a full-success, and can recklessly rush into danger and gains some benefit from it. The archetype isn't totally useless, but is good at moving the spotlight to others.

I think that's what people usually want when they play useless tag-alongs. They don't want to worry about being the knight who slays the dragon, but want to be the one who enables the knight to slay the dragon. A lot of games simply don't support that behavior or they're hidden mechanical options.

That type of character is party support. His job is to buff others and remove their afflictions. It's in everyone's interest to be competent doing that, and it's a verily possible thing to be. Someone wanting to be a useless tag-along has little to do with wanting to be party support. The tag-along just wants to be a bad comic relief or a tragic special snowflake.

Tanarii
2018-10-08, 10:15 PM
I do these things every day, and have yet to receive a quest reward simply for waking up in the morning.
😂😂:smallbiggrin:

Florian
2018-10-09, 01:20 AM
Ok, the way I see it: A game system should include a good and clear reward and progression structure that is in line with what the game, story, campaign and so on is all about. The closer you stick to what the system was designed to do well, the more natural the reward structure should mesh with player choices and actions. So, I will use the term "drama" as a placeholder here, but if the game, story or campaign focuses on negative aspects, then a negative progression is also a reward, at least when that is what the players themselves want.

What I don't see is the direct connection between mechanical options and contribution. You don't need a, say, Charm Person spell or Diplomacy skill to actually contribute to the game by having a conversation with an NPC, asking the guard for directions and so on. While, yes, a D&D Wizard has more mechanical solutions than a D&D Fighter, but still work on the same level of basic interaction, therefore contribution with the game world.

Floret
2018-10-09, 04:19 AM
The point here being that the terminology is a by-product of a certain tool used to visualize relations between different motives. It's not exact, there are lots of different words to convey the same ideas.

I still disagree on terminology, but that would be, for the most part, semantics and perspective.


You're mostly correct. There's just one minor lapse of logic: you've correctly identified that motivating a new player may need "stabbing around in the dark", that is, trial and error.

But trial and error is not tailormaking, if anything, it's usually the opposite.

Fair, but:


Roleplaying games are not immune to empiricism. A person who has little or no knowledge and experience with the hobby cannot reason out a good game for themselves. Hence, you need something beyond the game itself to appeal to these people long enough that you can actually do the thing you suggest, tell them what the game is and try it out.

In my experience, a vast number of people are interested in some aspect of roleplaying. If someone isn't, I'm not sure that enticing them with cookies is... worth it? Pointing out aspects about the experience they haven't thought about, connecting it to things you know they like, sure.

But fully unrelated things? Sure, snacks are a staple of gaming, but they aren't why we meet. I can meet with friends for snacks on its own, I don't need gaming for that.

Plus, establishing standards you (or future GMs) aren't gonna keep up sounds like a debatable idea. Your comparison to the pitch meeting falls flat here - because while there will be a pitch meeting, it's before the first session, not the first session. The first session establishes how things are gonna be, and has to be an enticing activity, but here the thing is the game.

And I disagree someone without gaming experience can't judge if they liked a gaming session, or why. People are able to judge if they had fun and analyse where it came from, you don't need experience for that. It might help with the wording, but the general adjucation is the same. If someone after the first session said "Well the cookies were nice", I failed.

But of course RPGs aren't beyond empiricism. Nothing is.

Tanarii
2018-10-09, 10:22 AM
In my experience, a vast number of people are interested in some aspect of roleplaying. If someone isn't, I'm not sure that enticing them with cookies is... worth it? Pointing out aspects about the experience they haven't thought about, connecting it to things you know they like, sure.
Getting XP for taking the time out of your busy day & put your character at risk is a motivator. Giving it to people who haven't taken the time out of their busy day, nor put their character at risk, is a demotivator to participation. This is pretty straight forward. The XP award motivation is at odds with any natural motivation to show up and risk your character. In other words, rewarding non-participation means other motivations has to overcome the chosen award system motivations working against it.

Now personally, I prefer XP to be awarded for accomplishing something, so it motivates players to attempt to accomplish those things. But that has the nice added benefit that it's not a demotivator for attendance.

MoiMagnus
2018-10-09, 12:50 PM
Getting XP for taking the time out of your busy day & put your character at risk is a motivator. Giving it to people who haven't taken the time out of their busy day, nor put their character at risk, is a demotivator to participation. This is pretty straight forward. The XP award motivation is at odds with any natural motivation to show up and risk your character. In other words, rewarding non-participation means other motivations has to overcome the chosen award system motivations working against it.

Now personally, I prefer XP to be awarded for accomplishing something, so it motivates players to attempt to accomplish those things. But that has the nice added benefit that it's not a demotivator for attendance.

But not giving XP to "people who haven't taken the time out of their busy day" is also a demotivator, since it increases the gap between the ones who played in the last session and the ones who don't. While giving them XP is a motivator, because they will have new stuff to try with the unlocked capacities.

If the XP you miss has too much influence on the opportunity and possibility of your character (which is particularly the case in level-based systems, but far less in point-buy systems), and if you are already on the tipping point of not being there at every session, it's probably gonna make you stop coming at all.

Tanarii
2018-10-09, 02:41 PM
But not giving XP to "people who haven't taken the time out of their busy day" is also a demotivator, since it increases the gap between the ones who played in the last session and the ones who don't. While giving them XP is a motivator, because they will have new stuff to try with the unlocked capacities.
You'd have to miss an awful lot of games for there to be a meaningful enough level gap to cause a serious demotivation based on actual mechanical problem.

A demotivation based on a mistaken perception that a single level is a problem might exist. Depending on whether or not a DM cares about players mistaken perceptions or not, that might be important to them. I mean, the player still feels how they feel, even if its not based on reality.

Quertus
2018-10-09, 03:53 PM
transparent versus opaque reward structures and how their effects on game play differ.

In an opaque game, this rule wouldn't be known beforehand, and the GM might not even explain the decision. These are characteristic of trial-and-error gameplay. It isn't necessarily poor game design, but it creates different incentives.

In a transparent system, rewards imply goals and allow players to plan ahead. If I know each gold piece nets me XP and XP leads to character advancement, now I can search the game map for the biggest treasure.

But what if I don't? Now there's at least one extra step involved. I cannot make concrete goals for character advancement before I figure out how it is done.

Opaque rewards which are also unpredictable (chiefly meaning you won't get the same reward for same action consistently) downright lower player agency, because the player now cannot make informed decisions about how to advance in the game.

I find that if you desire specific actions from the players, the reward structure should be as transparent as possible.

Exploraton is my favorite "aesthetic". But I've never enjoyed the metagame Exploration of trying to divine an XP system.

Personally, I feel that, if you want players to do x, the best answer is to tell then that you want them to do x, rather than have a passive-aggressive system of indirect communication through rewards.

Now, that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to rewards lining up with desired behavior.

Still, if, after a D&D game, you suddenly asked me for White Wolf XP, I'd answer you as easily I would after a Mage game, because I don't think about such things during the session.

In other words, I, personally, find it crass to be evaluating actions in terms of the reward system, rather than in terms of playing the character. Subsequently, I habitually evaluate such things after the fact, rather than as a motivating force.

I don't have metagame RPG goals of "I must kill x rats to get y XP to do z". Thinking in terms of the metagame detracts from role-playing, IME.


Having balance in "narrative contribution" is good, but if there's an issue with some players contributing little to the game, rewards that incentives less contribution is bad idea IMO.

So, if the Fighter is being outperformed the Wizard, the correct answer is power up the Wizard further? :smallconfused:


The thing is... there are a lot of campaigns where "ability to contribute" and "character competence" are inextricably linked. When you have a character who is out of sync with the other characters (that is, unbalanced) in their degree of competence, you have a character who is unable to contribute.

First, for these campaigns, there's no such thing as character who has no competence but is still contributing. Whether social, intellectual (skills, ideas, etc), or martial, whether provided by the on-paper stats or by the player via thought and roleplay, the character is providing competence and contribution.

Second, this gets into why it's so aggravating to have that player who routinely wants to play characters who have nothing to contribute, and insists that this inability to contribute is core to the "concept". Whether they wish they were playing something different (maybe a "slice of life" or "literary" or whatever game), or inspired by the mistaken notion that any fictional element can be adapted to RPGs ("I'm going to play a guy like Joxer!").

IMO, deliberate lack of competence, deliberate lack of contribution beyond "filling a narrative trope", is for many campaigns one of the worst things a player can do.

I am quite pleased by how thoroughly you seem to grasp, and how easily you express the notion that character capabilities, player skill, etc, all combine to create the ability to contribute. I struggle more than you appear to with this notion. Yes, a class can be the worst chassis, and still be the foundation for the strongest playing piece, because of the build. A character can be, mechanically, weakest, and still contribute the most, because of the player. Etc etc.

I'm contending that, merely measuring that final value of total contribution, one can best achieve balance to those who desire it by adding to the character with less ability to contribute. A bit simplistic, perhaps, but said in reaction to a post in the previous thread that was encouraging the opposite behavior, of rewarding contribution on an individual level.

That having been said... I'm confused by your ire towards those who explicitly desire not to take the spotlight, not to contribute. Perhaps it's because I prefer games with double-digit players, where such abnegation as all but required for smooth play, that I condone such behavior. And look much more askance at those who, at the other extreme, desire to hog the spotlight, to power up their character being their peers, to munchkin the system to the fullest extent possible with no concern for the effects on the game or their companions.

Although I can't say as I'm familiar or comfortable with the notion of doing it to fulfill a narrative trope.


Ok, the way I see it: A game system should include a good and clear reward and progression structure that is in line with what the game, story, campaign and so on is all about. The closer you stick to what the system was designed to do well, the more natural the reward structure should mesh with player choices and actions. So, I will use the term "drama" as a placeholder here, but if the game, story or campaign focuses on negative aspects, then a negative progression is also a reward, at least when that is what the players themselves want.

What I don't see is the direct connection between mechanical options and contribution. You don't need a, say, Charm Person spell or Diplomacy skill to actually contribute to the game by having a conversation with an NPC, asking the guard for directions and so on. While, yes, a D&D Wizard has more mechanical solutions than a D&D Fighter, but still work on the same level of basic interaction, therefore contribution with the game world.

Batman can contribute mechanically to a discussion by buying, bugging, bribing, intimidating, etc etc, in ways that Average Joe simply can't. Batman, the great detective, is much more likely to know things that will let him make good choices (not offering steak to a vegetarian, as a silly example) that Average Joe simply cannot match.

And, even in venues where no character capabilities used, certainly player skills are not created equal.

So, it seems to me that you still shouldn't expect equal contribution in such areas, whether people are using their full resources, or just their player skills.

My contention, relevant to this angle, is that, if one player has better player skills, should you not power up the weakest player with Batman, while leaving the stronger player with Average Joe, if you / they desire balance?

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-09, 04:44 PM
I am quite pleased by how thoroughly you seem to grasp, and how easily you express the notion that character capabilities, player skill, etc, all combine to create the ability to contribute. I struggle more than you appear to with this notion. Yes, a class can be the worst chassis, and still be the foundation for the strongest playing piece, because of the build. A character can be, mechanically, weakest, and still contribute the most, because of the player. Etc etc.

I'm contending that, merely measuring that final value of total contribution, one can best achieve balance to those who desire it by adding to the character with less ability to contribute. A bit simplistic, perhaps, but said in reaction to a post in the previous thread that was encouraging the opposite behavior, of rewarding contribution on an individual level.

That having been said... I'm confused by your ire towards those who explicitly desire not to take the spotlight, not to contribute. Perhaps it's because I prefer games with double-digit players, where such abnegation as all but required for smooth play, that I condone such behavior. And look much more askance at those who, at the other extreme, desire to hog the spotlight, to power up their character being their peers, to munchkin the system to the fullest extent possible with no concern for the effects on the game or their companions.

Although I can't say as I'm familiar or comfortable with the notion of doing it to fulfill a narrative trope.



Don't conflate spotlight-seeking with contribution -- there are myriad ways in which a character can contribute without seeking the spotlight. Two classic examples would be "the healer" and "the resource monger". The latter can be a huge contribution in Vampire, for example where we had a character who spent a lot of points on Resources and Havens and Contacts and Influence and so on, and then quietly made things happen from the background while providing the rest of the PCs with safehouses, access to information, police on the take who'd look the other way, etc.

My ire is reserved for those characters who don't do anything unless dragged along, deliberately have nothing to offer when things get rough, deliberately never grow into the "life of adventure", etc.


In terms of "narrative tropes", imagine all the fictional characters who are presented as out of their element, in over their head, with nothing to offer, but who are along for the ride for whatever reason. There are players who want to play that character, who want to define their character by that aspect and never have the character grow into someone who can contribute in any way. And in my experience the players who do this are "serial offenders", repeatedly bringing these sorts of characters to the game.

In a superhero campaign, they make the character with the odd power, crappy defenses, no movement power of their own. And do it in the next campaign too.

In the Vampire campaign, they make the character who was just changed and doesn't know what's going on and is just some college student or housewife who can't do or provide anything and spends the entire campaign bemoaning their condition in the face of far bigger concerns. And do it in the next campaign too. (This one gets a little tricky because the wanks at White Wolf spent so much time pushing naval-gazing angst and self-pity as the "right way" to play Vampire, but for most of us that got old pretty quick... but not for "that player".)

In the black-ops campaign they make the agency office drone who shouldn't be in the field but gets thrown into the fire, but never seems to bother learning any marksmanship or improving their stealth or turning their computer skills into hacking over time, they just want to be that guy. And do it in the next campaign too.

In a D&D campaign, they spend all their proficiencies or whatever on the skills to be a damn baker, and want to play the guy who got pulled into the adventure against his will. And do it in the next campaign too.

Lorsa
2018-10-10, 01:19 AM
Even though I'm in favor of not rewarding failure, and instead rewarding either success, or at least trying to succeed ... I'm still going to remind you that a lack of a reward is not a punishment.

I seem to recall we had a long thread discussing this very issue. I was trying to give you a more contextual view of rewards and punishments, but I have now come up with a new stance.

It is a reward if it triggers a dopamine rush in anticipation of the event. It is a punishment if it triggers a reduction in serotonin if the event happens.

Or if you wish, you can insert "it will be perceived as a reward/punishment if...". And, since our understanding of what is and is not a reward/punishment, it is intrinsically linked to our perception of it. Or, in other words, it is intrinsically linked to the interplay of dopamine and serotonin (with the possibility of other neurotransmitters as my understanding may be faulty and new knowledge can be generated).

Pelle
2018-10-10, 03:04 AM
So, if the Fighter is being outperformed the Wizard, the correct answer is power up the Wizard further? :smallconfused:


No. The answer is to encourage the Fighter player to contribute more, keeping the characters the same. I was talking about player contribution. If you posit that the Fighter character abilities are worse than the Wizard character abilities, you could fix that of course, but encouraging players to contribute less so that their character grows more powerful is bad for the game IMO.



I'm contending that, merely measuring that final value of total contribution, one can best achieve balance to those who desire it by adding to the character with less ability to contribute. A bit simplistic, perhaps, but said in reaction to a post in the previous thread that was encouraging the opposite behavior, of rewarding contribution on an individual level.


The opposite of rewarding contribution on an individual level is not necessarily penalizing it, more commonly people just reward contribution on a collective level. How do you measure it, by the way?



My contention, relevant to this angle, is that, if one player has better player skills, should you not power up the weakest player with Batman, while leaving the stronger player with Average Joe, if you / they desire balance?

I agree, you could power up Batman to get a more balanced result. However, IMO the game becomes much more enjoyable if you instead encourage the player to take more initiative, make decisions etc, and obtaining the balance that way.

Floret
2018-10-10, 06:16 AM
Getting XP for taking the time out of your busy day & put your character at risk is a motivator. Giving it to people who haven't taken the time out of their busy day, nor put their character at risk, is a demotivator to participation. This is pretty straight forward.

It might be, in the realm where people put the power level of a character they never play above the enjoyment of the game. This is not the realm I live in.

Having that character be more powerful means nothing, unless you put them back at risk. If players are meaningfully scared enough for their characters that they would rather not play, all other factors being equal, they might be a rather poor fit for your game.


The XP award motivation is at odds with any natural motivation to show up and risk your character. In other words, rewarding non-participation means other motivations has to overcome the chosen award system motivations working against it.

Like the game being fun and the whole reason for showing up to begin with? Player motivation not being inherently tied to character survival?

I know our playstyles are rather distinct, but come on. Noone who is so scared to loose their character will be overcome by xp gain for them anyways.

Your theory only holds if the primary motivation is character advancement, irrespective of opportunity to play. In the vast majority of cases, it isn't. The game is.

Stuebi
2018-10-10, 07:15 AM
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to show this as the "universal truth" this is how I play and provide my games.

The "Reward" is being able to play your character in a story/setting/campaign/whatever the dm created, things like XP are just a framework providing character evolution on a mechanic-level. Which does not mean that I don't enjoy receiving or handing out XP Rewards, but I do feel like many people are turning it into a competition for no good reason.

When I DM, I usually just use a table for XP Rewards, depending on how hard the Encounters are. And then everybody gets the same amount. And yes, this is the only kind of "OOC" Reward I provide. Everything else is earned or found in the game itself.

I've tried things like bonuses for good roleplaying before, but in my opinion it just creates an environment where people want to one-up each other, or the ones not receiving a bonus growing resentful.


If somebody actually asked me to implement any sort of bonus system or the like, I would get that they are either not enjoying the basic experience at all, or not enough. And need arbitary goodies thrown their way to keep them interested. And at that point, I would just not want to play with them anymore since our preferences and priorities concerning RPGs obviously don't line up.

Tanarii
2018-10-10, 10:00 AM
Or if you wish, you can insert "it will be perceived as a reward/punishment if...". And, since our understanding of what is and is not a reward/punishment, it is intrinsically linked to our perception of it. Or, in other words, it is intrinsically linked to the interplay of dopamine and serotonin (with the possibility of other neurotransmitters as my understanding may be faulty and new knowledge can be generated).Perception is often wrong/delusional. It can certainly feel like a punishment, and some people with think that means their wrongness is correct, because they feel it, it must be truth.

They just need to be corrected as to the reality of the situation when they're trying to state their wrongness as if it is truth. :p



Like the game being fun and the whole reason for showing up to begin with? Player motivation not being inherently tied to character survival?

I know our playstyles are rather distinct, but come on. Noone who is so scared to loose their character will be overcome by xp gain for them anyways.

Your theory only holds if the primary motivation is character advancement, irrespective of opportunity to play. In the vast majority of cases, it isn't. The game is.
You miss my point. Yes, my "theory" holds true as long as the reward seen as a positive thing. I was merely trying to state the direction of various positive and negative motivations. Not the strength/value of them, and which are stronger.

However, I definitely made an error. A reward gained even if you don't show up is not a negative motivator. It is neutral motivator. That leaves the motivations in favor (having fun playing the game) to balance out the negative ones (using the time for other things; risk of losing characters with invested time) without reference to rewards.

I do agree typically risk of losing character is not a primary demotivator. It's the need or desire to use that time for other things. That's why I play official play. IMX small groups that come together for a single group of Pcs campaign inevitably disintergrate in 3-4 months due to school, work, or people getting flaky and going off to do other fun things. So much so that I now just assume they'll be about 6-8 sessions.

Lorsa
2018-10-10, 01:14 PM
Perception is often wrong/delusional. It can certainly feel like a punishment, and some people with think that means their wrongness is correct, because they feel it, it must be truth.

They just need to be corrected as to the reality of the situation when they're trying to state their wrongness as if it is truth. :p

I would think the very basis for our view on reward and punishment really lies in the interaction of our brain chemistry. Also, you can't simply reduce our perceptions from the equations, since it is through our perceptions we learn, and even construct, the concepts of rewards and punishment (or any other concept for that matter).

If you have a certain neurochemical reaction and your peers inform you that this "constitutes a reward", while for another reaction they say "this is a punishment", then how is our understanding not linked to our perception?

Our understanding of reward and punishment, I am fairly certain, have emerged from our human way of making sense of our basic brain chemistry (which goes way back in the evolutionary chain). Do you have another definition, and how would you explain this definition to other people in a way that feels intuitive?

Tanarii
2018-10-10, 02:49 PM
Of you have a certain neurochemical reaction and your peers inform you that this "constitutes a reward", while for another reaction they say "this is a punishment", then how is our understanding not linked to our perception?
Because reward or punishment is defined entirely based on the intended purpose. And has nothing to do with how it is received.

The Insanity
2018-10-10, 03:29 PM
We stoped using XP after our first campaign.

Max_Killjoy
2018-10-10, 03:50 PM
When the result is exactly the same -- "Everyone gets a cookie but you" -- it can be a very thin line between "everyone else earned a reward" and "you're being singled out for punishment".

Knaight
2018-10-10, 05:27 PM
Because reward or punishment is defined entirely based on the intended purpose. And has nothing to do with how it is received.

This sounds like a textbook case of needing to get better at aligning your intentions with the results of actions taken - because while you can keep insisting indefinitely that it's not a reward/punishment because it's not intended to be in terms of motivational effect it's all about reception, and people aren't going to defer to intention there.

Cluedrew
2018-10-10, 06:22 PM
Your theory only holds if the primary motivation is character advancement, irrespective of opportunity to play. In the vast majority of cases, it isn't. The game is.In my mind the view of "XP as a reward" is mostly useful is everyone is aware of that and so it serves as a communication line about how the game is supposed to be played. Its like (a little bit) playing to win when you don't actually care who wins. Games are designed with the intent of the people playing them working towards victory, so (in theory) following that rule should lead to the most fun. Role-playing games muddy the water a bit but I think the same sort of idea can be applied.

Plus XP works as a game balancing feature or a pacing mechanic. The former is of course not a perfect system, but I thought I would also mention that in a balanced game XP or other cost actually can serve as a notice about how strong a particular feature or character is. Pacing comes from idea that if you play the game as intended you should advance at the intended rate. Hopefully this means that you have the right amount of time between new abilities that you are neither board nor overwhelmed.

On Weak Characters: I can think of several campaigns where the weakest character had the most effect on the plot. Well... I'll say one for sure. Basically despite lacking any ability to actually do things, they had the most drive to do them. The other PCs got caught up in their quest (I played the weak character's hireling) the plot moved forward. That was a very "reverse plot hooks" game as well, so that PC was a good hunk of the campaign. And they succeeded in almost nothing the whole game.

Durandu Ran
2018-10-11, 12:07 AM
In the campaign I’m playing now, we’re not keeping track of XP and the DM is just having the party do synchronized level ups when it feels appropriate. I’m pretty happy with it, and it’s led to one particularly neat moment early on where after spending most of our session finding our way to the final chamber of the dungeon, we got off to a bad start in a boss battle and ran past our usual time, low on health without having made much of a dent on the boss. The DM ended the session, told us to level up our characters, and we came back next week with level three characters and kicked off a dramatic “second wind” moment.

Lorsa
2018-10-11, 02:40 AM
Because reward or punishment is defined entirely based on the intended purpose. And has nothing to do with how it is received.

Intended purpose is ALSO a perception, just the perception of the actor, rather than the recipient. Add to that that our normal vocabulary allows us to claim reward and punishment even in the absence of intent (such as, "the winter punished them hard for not making proper preparations").

Even if you don't care about that, your idea runs into some very weird absurd scenarios, such as:

"My dear son, I can't understand why you never come home in time, even if every time you do, I reward you with a great spanking!"

or

"My dear daughter, I can't understand why you suddenly stopped coming home in time, since every time you are late, I punish you with a lollypop!"

Pleh
2018-10-11, 07:06 AM
Because reward or punishment is defined entirely based on the intended purpose. And has nothing to do with how it is received.

TLDR, the easiest way to fix a catastrophic disconnect between intent and perception is to have a strong Session 0 where these sorts of house rules (or house interpretations) get explained before they come up in play.

---

Inferrence vs implication.

Punishment could be inferred where it was not implied. This is a simple, textbook case of miscommunication.

But here's the real question. In this conversation, who bears the burden of clarity? Whose job is it to identify and reiterate the intent being exchanged, the speaker or the listener (in this case, the DM or the player respectively)?

To say that denying XP could be perceived as a punishment and thus should be avoided is the same as declaring that a speaker should bear the burden of clarity by being careful not to say or do anything that could be easily misconstrued (which includes accounting for the fact that many of your listeners will be affected by their difference in worldview). It speaks to the virtue of being kind and considerate with your words.

To say that punishment can't be inferred, only intended, is the same as saying that the burden of clarity is on the listener. The listener ought to account for their difference in worldview from the speaker and use cross examining questions and critical reasoning to identify the speaker's intended meaning accurately. It speaks to the virtue of being a thoughtful and attentive listener, not a combative one.

In truth, neither is wrong. Ideally, both will seek to assume partial responsibility once they identify the problem. The true crime in this instance is shoving all responsibility on the other person.

"They shouldn't feel punished because I didn't mean to punish them" is a rude and inconsiderate stance. If that is the case, then you should not be overburdened to take the time to communicate how this is not any kind of punishment and to reiterate your DM philosophy to the offended player. It's not good enough to insist they figure this out for themselves, be kind enough to help them understand what you meant by it.

"You shouldn't deny XP for lack of attendance because it could be misconstrued and inferred as a punishment" is also unfair. It's overburdening the DM when the solution is much simpler; declaring intent at session 0 should be sufficient. If it is overlooked at session 0, it should be made an addendum the first time it occurs (eg the first time someone misses a session) and the DM should take responsibility for neglecting it as session 0 if it causes hardship.