anyway.

"Why do we need a reward system? Can't play be it's own reward?"

Saying it that way, and having compared to poker, makes me think this question is almost like asking "Isn't flipping cards it's own reward?" Ok sure, for some folks, in need of something mindless do just shuffle cards and such, and such fiddling is the reward.

But obviously you play poker to accomplish something. Perhaps you're playing for real money. Perhaps you're playing to have something to do with your hands while you chat with your friends.

So yea, any activity that people enjoy doing has some kind of reward. Formalizing a reward system just makes it more clear what kind of reward the activity might present, though such formalization does not necessarily suggest any individual will be interested in the activity for that reward. Which I guess is where CA and incoherence start to come into play. If one guy is playing poker to cover his rent, another to chit chat, and a third because he likes flipping cards, there's a chance they will clash somehow.

As usual, Vincent, you have a way of stating things simply and with few words...

Frank

I get the part about rewarding actual play and creative agenda. But what is the ???reward system??? of a game ???as written???? Does it even exist? From the point of view of a game designer, any textual rule ties into the concept of making the game rewarding, at least if it???s a good design. You want to support a dynamic at the social and the fictional level. This support is most commonly provided by awarding effectiveness to the character or authority to the player. Some games use currency and advancement a lot, others use sophisticated resolution mechanics, others use positioning, or any combination, or other stuff. The positioning method is probably the least covered by written game rules, and it fascinates me.

I don???t know of any fight about this matter, but here is what I think, sort of my hidden agenda when asking the question. I think that there is no such thing as a ???written reward system???, as opposed to ???the rest of the written system???. There is just good rules and bad rules. Good rules facilitate rewarding play, and bad rules don???t.

Frank, sure, good rules and bad rules. But you don't want to dismiss what people say about reward systems just because you think there's no such thing.

The reason it matters is that the largest repeat, the "reward" system, will contain subsystems that aren't rewarding by themselves. The highest-level system gives the subsystems their value.

When one of us says "reward system," you'll miss out badly if you dismiss us with "there's no such thing as a reward system." You can pretend that we said "the longest-running repeating dynamic" or "the system that brings the various subsystems into contact with one another" instead if you want, but I promise you we're talking about something.

The terminology is making my head ache. What was the difference between reward cycle and reward system again?

Anyway, I was under the impression that the term "reward system" is also commonly used to discern a special part of a game's mechanics, as written down by the designer. XP. Keys. Fanmail. That kind of thing. If it isn't, consider my point withdrawn.

Yes. But not just any old special part. A particular special part: the largest repeat.

Something here isn't making sense for you and I don't know what it is. Do you see how the XP cycle, the Key cycle, and the Fanmail cycle are the largest repeating mechanical cycles in their respective games?

So ... uh ...

Bonus dice in Sorcerer aren't a reward mechanic?  Giving fanmail in PTA isn't a reward mechanic (the largest mechanical cycle of the game is the story arc)?

Balls, man.

yrs—
—Ben

Vincent, is this what you're saying:

Many things in D&D are fun, but the XP cycle is what is holding the fun together; many things in TSoY are fun, but the Key cycle is what is holding the fun together; many things in PtA are fun, but the Fan Mail cycle is what is holding the fun together?

If so, no, I don't see it.

Ben: Fan mail is totally the biggest repeating system in PTA, for all of the PTA I've ever played. It's only multi-season games where the story arc system has a repeat.

Sorcerer ... I'm not confident about. What IS Sorcerer's reward system?

Frank: No, that's not it at all. I'll try again. Do you see that the XP cycle in D&D, the Keys cycle in TSoY, and the Fanmail cycle in PTA are all the longest-term repeating cycles in those games?

I'd argue that PTA's screen presence repeats on an episode-to-episode basis, but that's arguable.  What's strange to me is this: if we play a second season of a show, does that then mean that all the fan-mail we awarded is, retroactively, not a reward?

'cause that would be strange.

—

Sorcerer's reward system is threefold.

1) When you resolve a kicker, you get some stupid piddling humanity check which might raise one of your ratings by one.  Sometimes.

2) You get humanity gain rolls for doing pro-humanity stuff.

3) You get significant bonus dice all the time for doing things that are awesome—in multiple respects (in-character, just cool, plot-appropriate, whatever.)  These dice constitute a significant portion of your roll (sometimes all of it.)

Note that the power of the reward mechanic is inversely proportional to the timescale.  Hey, Ron, if you're reading, is this by design?

—

I'd like to propose an alternate definition of "reward" wrt RPGs.  "Reward" is simply the satisfaction ("Fun" or otherwise) from playing the game.  A reward system is a system in place specifically and solely for the purpose of noting and respecting moments of high reward.  All functional games have a reward system, though it might be totally social-level.

yrs—
—Ben

Last paragraph.  Strike "functional."  Replace with "coherent."

yrs—
—Ben

Ben, IMO the most potent reward in Sorcerer are the four big outcomes. Take the outlaw triumphant, and think about what you had to do to get there.

First, you and the other players defined Humanity, and you picked a definition you find meaningful and significant to the actual people at the table. Then, you made up a PC who is in defiance of that moral code for his own personal ends. Then, you played that guy for however many sessions, repeatedly and significantly weighing Humanity against your guy's personal needs. When you finally resolve the Kicker, you've proven to the other players that there are things more important than Humanity.

Isn't this awesome? Humanity is something everyone at the table thinks is vital and important, and you've gotten them all to acknowledge that it takes second place. And this acknowledgement is emotional rather than intellectual, because we're making story rather than a formal philosophical argument.

Also, notice the other things you get to do in Sorcerer when you resolve your kicker:

Write a new kicker.
Re-write any descriptors.

If anything, this redefinition of character is the reward.

The bonus dice in Sorcerer aren't a reward mechanic. They are behavioral modificators, you could say, because they make it tactically sensible to act in a certain manner (the manner that gives you dice, that is). But calling them reward mechanics is like calling the high ground bonus in D&D a reward mechanic. Doesn't fly.

The reason for why these things are so often confused is that reward mechanics are traditionally used in a pavlovian manner to control player participation. This doesn't mean that all pavlovian mechanics are reward mechanics.

I should also clarify why bonus dice in Sorcerer are not a reward mechanic while fan mail in PTA is: the former are used immediately, while the latter is a resource. The reward is that you get to choose what to win and what to lose by expending fan mail, which is a reward in the narrativist context. The Sorcerer bonus dice are just a social consideration that encourages certain play behaviors after you've decided that you want to win the conflict. You could say that it's a mechanic for color control, fueled by the player's will to win.

I'd write about the actual reward mechanic of Sorcerer, but Piers already nailed it: kicker resolution is the main reward mechanic, because it allows you to either retire the character or write a new kicker, which both are forms of closure (closure being a reward in the narrativist context). Because the mechanic here is "just" a story-arc flag, it's quite possible that there are other reward cycles going on, insofar as the player is invested in any other storylines apart from his own kicker. The kicker just happens to be the one storyline the rules single out for mechanical consideration. (Compare with Dust Devils and The Shadow of Yesterday; the former has the same idea of a "core story", while the latter has formal support for several concurrent story arcs.)

Humanity gain/loss as reward mechanic? Sure, makes sense. The reward is that the system affirms the (im)morality of your actions, making a moral statement independent of yourself. That's pretty fun, certainly a reward in the narrativist context. The interesting question for the Sorcerer-scholar is, how does this interact with the Kicker resolution mechanic apart from providing an alternate form of closure? My answer is that prodding Humanity is how you resolve the Kicker (similar to how by prodding the Devil in Dust Devils you resolve the Devil), so the two mechanics are actually subsets.

The kicker in Sorcerer is like the story arc in Primetime Adventures or checkmate in Chess. It defines the length of the game, it's not the reward mechanic.

Rewriting your kicker and playing on in Sorcerer is like playing another season in Primetime Adventures or "best two out of three" in Chess.

That's my drowsy Sunday morning thought.

I think "reward mechanic" is a very bad term. It should be spanked and sent to its room.

It's causing a lot of confusion. A reward system is not the same as character advancement, but "reward mechanic" seems to make people want to equate the two. Character advancement, like anything else in a game, can feed into the reward system, but it's not the reward system itself.

Case in point: OD&D/D&D1e experience points are part of character advancement, but are not the reward system. The reward cycle is the *delve* in these D&D games, and also The Fantasy Trip (and probably D&D2e/3e, but I haven't played these to verify.) You take your characters to a dungeon, you explore for as long as you are willing, then you haul your treasure back to town and advance your character. Cycle repeats, if desired, same dungeon and characters, or different ones of either. XPs can be directly tied to the reward cycle, if the DM only awards XPs when the party returns to town. Not all DMs do it that way, though; some dole out XPs after every combat, some do it at the end of a session. Almost no DMs allow character advancement in the middle of a delve, however.

I totally get what Vincent is saying with respect to the reward cycle being the largest repeating cycle.  But once again I think some folks are really confusing themselves by overthinking this.

Of course there are sub cycles within the larger cycle.  Of course those sub cycles feed into the reward cycle and hence are part of the reward cycle.  Of course there are larger cycles that MAY repeat (but are not required to) that encompasses the reward cycle.  None of those things invalidates the core idea that there is a primary identifiable cycle that drives the system.

D&D is easy because the game makes the cycle obvious.  Its the Level Up cycle.  It doesn't matter where the XPs come from.  At some point you level up.  That's the reward cycle.  Finishing a delve is an important subcycle of the overall reward cycle.  Making it through an encounter (clearing a room)is an important subcycle in finishing the delve.  Killing a monster is an important subcycle of the encounter.  Successfully doing damage or throwing a gnarly spell is an important subcycle of killing a monster.

All of those things are "rewarding" because they all feed into the overall reward cycle of Leveling Up.  Doing damage gets you closer to killing a monster.  Killing a monster gets you closer to clearing the room.  Clearing a room gets you closer to finishing the delve.  Finishing the delve gets you closer to getting out alive with your XPs and treasure.  XPs and treasure get you closer to...Leveling Up.

You can break down all games like that.  Lets not get all tied in knots about seeing things that individually may look rewarding but don't seem to operate on the scale of the largest cycle...and then get all confused about Vincent's definition.  Those individual things are just gears within gears of that largest repeating cycle.

Ralph

So to continue with that thought, it seems clear to me that the largest repeating cycle in Sorcerer is changing the Humanity Score.

Unlike D&D where all of the sub cycles nest neatly within each other and tie directly together, Sorcerer's subcycles are much more Rube Goldberg-esque.

addressing kickers, being hit with bangs, the dice resolution system, demons wants and needs, the relationship map, are all levers and pulleys, and dials, and buttons, designed with the ultimate goal of driving characters to their next Humanity Loss or Humanity Gain check.

Eero, how would rollover victories fit into this?

Specifically, I mean rollover victories that aren't spent on the next round, but instead might not be used for scenes or even sessions, at a point when they become situationally relevant, ie, a Sorcerer wins a Lore roll on a demon by reading about it in an ancient book, but doesn't encounter the demon until later in the story, and then uses them.

You can't just spend rollovers on whatever you want, but they are a resource.

-Chris

Actually, Ralph, leveling up is not necessary to D&D play.

It sounds counterintuitive, but aside from the obvious special case of tournament play, there's also the case of playing a nonhuman at maximum level. You can continue to play the character and still be rewarded, but can't level up anymore. Therefore, leveling up *can't* be the reward cycle.

Hey, Ralph—Don't you not like D&D?

I mean, 'cause it's very clear to me that there's a large scale reward cycle (levelling, right) and a small scale reward cycle (combat positioning and tactics).  I know this because I enjoy D&D, and I usually don't play with levelling up.

yrs—
—Ben

Oh, and, uh ... crap.  Pretend that, instead of saying "D&D" I just said "Iron Heroes" which also serves as a short-hand for the type of D&D which I'm discussing.

yrs—
—Ben

Vincent—that's probably true.

Eero—I'm not sure that something has to accumulate to be rewarding.  In fact, I'm sure that it's not a requirement.

yrs—
—Ben

The point is that for the term "reward cycle" to make sense, we have to remember that it's rewarding. This means that it feeds an agenda. Properly speaking, whether something is a reward mechanic or not depends on whether it does this directly as an explicit agenda interface, or indirectly, as just another mechanic in the game's structure. I like Vincent's technical analysis that points out that the reward cycle is, indeed by necessity, the largest repeating cycle in the game. This makes sense, but it's not a definition, it's an analysis of a recognizable property of the reward cycle.

D&D reward cycle: as far as I know, all versions of D&D except perhaps the latest one have the reward be increased depth and control over the fiction. Your character accumulates a history, the game becomes more intricate and complex, you have more sway over the events as the game progresses, your character becomes a protagonist. This is the reward. Leveling up is merely one of the mechanics that clarify and enforce the reward, it makes you notice that you're making progress. (It seems to me that 3rd edition is often played differently, though; many people seem to appreciate character effectiveness as result of player skill at system manipulation as it's own reward.)

Sorcerer roll-over victories: well, they're certainly a resource, but my understanding is that they're rarely a major story-driving force. I could easily see them used in that manner, of course. In practice I'd view roll-overs as more of an exploration level phenomenon that drives satisfying "dramatic texture" by making mechanical connections between previous and following events.

Sorcerer kicker resolution: as Vincent says, it definitely signals game-end. This doesn't mean it's not a reward mechanic. Just like MLwM epilogues, the Sorcerer kicker resolution demonstrates that closure is actually a pretty potent reward for a storyteller. I remember how we used to get high on the very fact of getting to finish a game instead of it just petering out when people lost interest. It's a bit like leveling up in D&D in that regard: you can stand up and say that you've made progress, instead of getting lost in the routine of playing week after week.

To recap: in Sorcerer, the reward cycle is that you get to finish a good story. Just like poker, you look around the table, say "That was a damn good story!" and perhaps go on to play another one. Mechanics that are direct interfaces to this good story phenomenon are kickers (telling you where to start and where to stop), humanity (protagonism) and, in certain kind of play, frequent and systematic use of rollovers. So those are "reward mechanics" in the sense of directly latching onto the reward cycle.

Ben: no, accumulation is not necessary, it just so happens that resources hold a special place in the narrativist designer's heart, because they're an easy way of letting players address premise. Put your chips where your heart is and all that. Almost any narrativist game design you care to name, if it has player-controlled resources, probably uses those resources for this very purpose. And it's a very rewarding purpose, because it's directly protagonizing. Thus, resource -> reward often enough, and even then it's not a matter of accumulation, but rather of leeway in spending.

Ben and D&D: when you play a small-scale D&D interaction without leveling and other campaign play features, what's the payoff? At what point do you feel satisfied by the effort? When the combat is won? When the current adventure is over? That's the reward cycle for the play. I think it's quite possible for a game like D&D to have several, sometimes conflicting reward cycles operating on different levels. We all know that D&D above all games is played in many dizzying varieties.

Quote from Eero:

The bonus dice in Sorcerer aren't a reward mechanic. They are behavioral modificators, you could say, because they make it tactically sensible to act in a certain manner (the manner that gives you dice, that is). But calling them reward mechanics is like calling the high ground bonus in D&D a reward mechanic. Doesn't fly.

Thanks for voicing this so clearly, since this is exactly where I disagree. As John put it, reward mechanic gets confounded with advancement. Ever played WuShu? The game is totally driven by behavioral modificators. That's all there is to it, and it works pretty well to create coherent, functional play. What is, by the way, the reward cycle in WuShu? There is certainly no mechanic attached to it.

You (= Vincent and most of the rest) say: For a group playing functionally and with shared creative agenda, there is a reward cycle. That???s the largest repeating cycle in the game. For this cycle, there is a reward system (as by the lumpley principle) in place. This can be mechanically enforced, or "just" social. Thus far, I agree. And then you say: The mechanical reward system is the part where you usually get some currency and the mechanics say "repeat".

I get that definition. I don't get how it's unique and important. Man, it seems absurd to me to call levelling up the largest repeating cycle in D&D. To me, it seems plain obvious that the largest repeating cycle in D&D is of course the mission. Levelling up is only there so the missions stay interesting in a longer campaign.

Or what about TSoY? What's the "key cycle", anyway? Buying a key, using it and then buying it off again? Why, you might do that within half an hour of play, or you might keep one key infinitely. I see how keys are a great mechanic and enforce coherent and functional play, but I don't see the essential feature they have in common with levelling up in D&D that makes both of them the reward system, whereas secrets and feats, abilities and skills, bringing down the pain and combat rules are something else. And what about gift dice, by the way?

I would also strongly suggest not to discard fictional content when talking about reward cycles, as indicated regarding D&D missions/adventures.

Here, let me compare Keys from TSoY to Traits from DitV. Keys are Flags, so are Traits. Keys make a player drive for certain fictional content, so do Traits (at least in conflict). Keys can be bought off, Traits can be changed. Arguably, Keys have more in common with Traits than with D&D XP/level-up. They just happen to increase character effectiveness in an indirect way whereas Traits are directly part of character effectiveness.

Frank, it's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it. ;)

Every reward system has to start with a reward. There are two ways to establish some kind of reward in a game.

1) The players look over the whole game, pick the one thing they want and align their playing behaviour accordingly. They employ whatever rules the book has to offer that help them get their reward.

2) The rules point out that "THIS RIGHT HERE" is the reward and it's what players have to go after. The rules in the game are expected to support playing behaviour that aims for that reward.

If you're going by Method (2), which I think many here do, than it makes perfect sense to look for the mechanic that actually rewards specific player behaviour, by handing out "currency". That's why such a mechanic is important. Without it, you cannot tell how the game is supposed to be played.

If you're using Method (1), finishing the mission might very well be the reward you've picked. A reward mechanic is completely worthless to you, because you already know what the reward is.

Frank, there's no reason to think that one reward system will have anything mechanical in common with any other. What makes it a reward system is its relationship to the rest of the game's components (yes, obviously including the fiction), not how it works in isolation, internally.

But sure, whatever. Here's my recommendation: design your games to work functionally over (at least) three timeframes, with interaction and feedback between them. "What do you do right this second, what do you do tonight, and what do you do in the game?" Then if you feel like it, you can retrospectively examine the game, find the little cluster of procedures that creates the said interaction and feedback, and name it "the reward system." If you don't feel like looking for it and naming it, still, you've included it in your design.

Let's say my name is Dan Bayn and I have written a game called WuShu. It has been proved as a rules set that, if applied correctly, produces very reliable fun for "right this second" and "tonight". Mostly, "tonight" equals "the game", but people playing over several sessions aren't unheard of.

Now, WuShu works by two simple principles: One detail in your description = 1 die in the resolution, and whatever I say happens ("narrative truth", resolution only affects the Effect part of IIEE). That's all. You don't get fanmail or XP or anything. What's my reward system?

Let's say my name is Jared Sorenson and I have written a game called Inspectres. It has been proved as a rules set that, if applied correctly, produces very reliable fun for "right this second" and "tonight". Mostly, "tonight" equals "the game", but people playing over several sessions aren't unheard of.

InSpectres is driven by the Franchise creation, Confessionals, and Conflict Resolution. What's my reward system? And don't tell me it's Franchise Points, I've never seen a game of InSpectres that even bothered to use them.

Sorry if I sound ranting, I'm just trying to make a connection because I really don't see it.

Uh, Frank?

"I examined Wushu and it doesn't have a reward system! Therefore 'reward system' is a bogus concept!"

If it's a bogus concept, how did you determine that Wushu doesn't have one?

Better yet, "most people don't play with InSpectre's reward system. Therefore 'reward system' is a bogus concept!"

Huh?

Oh wait, maybe I understand.

What claim about reward systems are you debunking?

It's trivially easy for me to provide both a definition for and examples of reward systems - I've done so. They exist, you even buy it, above. So what? What about them do you think I'm claiming, other than that they exist?

"All games have reward systems." "All well-designed games have formal, explicit, mechanical reward systems." "Without a reward system, your game will suck."

I'm not asserting any of those things.

Now wait a second, Mister, that was you claiming that any game that will work functionally over your three time frames will have identifyable features that can be called "reward system". I wasn't even testing you, those were honest questions. Are you here to play rethorical tricks, or what?

See, I remember Ron talking to those PrO guys in the Castle and telling them the easiest way to identify what kind of play a game supports is to look at the Reward System. And I'm looking at games I know and like and see a lot of stuff that supports a certain kind of play, and some of it is currency, some of it is resolution, much of it is setting and color, and there are a lot of different "cycles", as Ralph calls them, and I am wondering: Why should Reward System (whatever that is) be so special?

And by the way, your definition with the largest repeating cycle is quite different from the one in the Provisional Glossary, if you look at it. According to the Glossary, Pool Refreshment in TSoY is Reward System, as is awarding Gift Dice. Finding a magic sword in D&D is Reward System. Getting bonus dice in Sorcerer is Reward System.

Vincent, you wrote, in your first comment after the initial one:

But you don't want to dismiss what people say about reward systems just because you think there's no such thing.

So what is it that I'm dismissing that people are saying about Reward System?

D&D reward cycle: as far as I know, all versions of D&D except perhaps the latest one have the reward be increased depth and control over the fiction. Your character accumulates a history, the game becomes more intricate and complex, you have more sway over the events as the game progresses, your character becomes a protagonist. This is the reward. Leveling up is merely one of the mechanics that clarify and enforce the reward, it makes you notice that you're making progress. (It seems to me that 3rd edition is often played differently, though; many people seem to appreciate character effectiveness as result of player skill at system manipulation as it's own reward.)

I've never really played D&D this way. For me, D&D play has always been about the leveling up. From day one about 29 years ago. But just because D&D has a reward mechanic that supports this particular gamist reward cycle doesn't mean everyone plays the game with the same reward cycle.

One thing to consider is that a reward cycle requires a payoff. Another thing to consider is that if you actually pay attention to your players, the reward cycle will often (always?) be quite visible. Look for those "Yes!" moments, the big ones. Not the cheering when a major bad guy goes down, but the big ones when a player achieves some major accomplisment. The biggest visible one in my last Arcana Evolved (basically D&D) game was when a player who earlier had lamented that he wasn't "The best scrapper" later exclaimed "Now I'm the best scrapper!" That came after demonstrating his new effectiveness after a level up. Raw, pure celebration of leveling up.

I'd like to propose an alternate definition of "reward" wrt RPGs. "Reward" is simply the satisfaction ("Fun" or otherwise) from playing the game. A reward system is a system in place specifically and solely for the purpose of noting and respecting moments of high reward. All functional games have a reward system, though it might be totally social-level.

Last paragraph. Strike "functional." Replace with "coherent."

Ben, my thought is that you were right the first time. I strongly suspect that in a functional but incoherent game or a functional game without a real agenda (participationist for example), that there is some other (strong) reward system in effect. It just happens to be a reward system/cycle that doesn't drive a creative agenda.

Frank

ffilz: Perhaps here's some source of confusion. What you write sounds to me exactly like "increased depth and control over the fiction". Or are you telling us that you're really, really excited about getting to change that little "Fighter 6" to "Fighter 7" on the character sheet? I'm pretty sure that insofar as leveling up feels rewarding, it's because it signifies character advancement in one of those manners I listed: the game becomes deeper or more complex, the challenges get bigger, the character grows in detail. Instead of dying, the character becomes more resistant to dying, his value as a conquering hero increases. Or perhaps it's a sign of having "won", as it sometimes tends to be in modern D&D. Leveling up is just the symbol for the actual reward. It's a very central and powerful symbol, but unless a person has been totally abused of any actual play content, it's not the actual reward. If it were, you could just skip the actual process of play and make high-level characters directly. (Which some people seem to do with the current D&D, interestingly enough; the system encourages pre-planning your character to such a degree that actually gaining the experience becomes a kind of a formality.)

You see people, the "reward" in "reward system" is never, as far as I see, the concrete mechanical bonus or resource the system might give you. Those little numbers, extra dice and poker chips do not mean anything by themselves. The meaning is all in the agenda we bring to the table. Reward system only serves to deliver the real reward, which might be closure (like MLwM and Sorcerer), increased control (like D&D and Dust Devils), permanent change (like TSOY and DiV) or any number of other things. The agenda defines the reward system, it's not some part of the rules with a particularly separate form that could be found without reference to player motivation. You can't have this predefined idea of D&D experience points in your head and go analyze another game, trying to decide which feature of that game might be the xp-analogue. Even if you find one, there's no guarantee that it has anything to do with the reward system. As an example, the Runequest experience system breaks down horribly if it's utilized as an explicit reward system; it was only ever meant to be used as a long-term pseudo-realistic "behind-the-scenes" system the players just let do it's job without fiddling with it consciously.

Frank (T): See, I remember Ron talking to those PrO guys in the Castle and telling them the easiest way to identify what kind of play a game supports is to look at the Reward System. And I'm looking at games I know and like and see a lot of stuff that supports a certain kind of play, and some of it is currency, some of it is resolution, much of it is setting and color, and there are a lot of different "cycles", as Ralph calls them, and I am wondering: Why should Reward System (whatever that is) be so special?

You've got the causality inside out.

Don't look at "the reward system" and try to figure out why it's special. Look at which systems are special.

I used to have this argument all the damn time about the looly pooly. I'd be like, "your system is how you decide what happens" and they'd be like, "no, we ignore our system all the time," and I'd be like, "I mean, you know how you decide what happens? That's your system," and they'd be like, "maybe in your hippy games," and I'd rip my own eyes out.

Frank, if something's sustaining Wushu into multi-session play, what is it? It's something.

But if you're serious about understanding this, post actual play at the Forge. I can give you definitions and examples, that's all. You want to really see it, the Actual Play forum is the place.

Vincent, I totally see the part with the Reward System at the table. I just think that the Reward System in the game rules is something entirely separate, that, if at all existent, may be linked to the former if the designer so decides, which is totally up to the designer. Look at Ron???s definition: It's all in there. I just failed to look it up again before I asked the question in the open house.

Look, I wasn't aiming for a discussion like this, but when it came up, I voiced my concerns. Then people started confusing Reward Cycle and Reward System and the 3-4 different things Reward System refers to according to the Glossary, making it even more complicated than it already is.

I'll give it one last try. Let's for a moment use the term of Reward Lumpley for what Ron describes as (a), and Reward Mechanics for what Ron describes as (b) and (c), okay? Now, that's two totally different things. And then Ron says, usually when people say reward system, they mean how the Reward Mechanics facilitate the Reward Lumpley. So the mechanics facilitate the personal and social gratification, right?

And here I go saying: Why do those mechanics where you "get something" (the in-game "reward", usually a change to the character) facilitate personal and social gratification any more than other mechanics, or other stuff in the game text such as Setting and Color? Why do they hold such a special place that one would use them, via the Reward Cycle idea, as a primary means to identify an Instance of Play, which is in turn the measurement for Creative Agenda? That is the thing I don???t get. I can???t make it any clearer than that.

Okay, I thought I was feeling what you (Frank T) were feeling when I started writing this, then you posted the above, and I haven't yet had a chance to let it settle in. I'll get back to you on that.

It seems to me that there are two different definitions of Reward System being used here. Firstly; the game system at its largest repeat. Secondly; the property of the game that rewards repeated instances of play. (Okay, neither of those are good definitions, or indeed the definitions people are using, but hopefully you can see how they designate the definitions being used above.)

Now it's easy to see how either of these can be the definition of a reward system. What is harder to see, where this topic actually becomes significant, is the claim that these definitions are synonymous. The claim that the largest cycle of the game system is the reason why repeated play is rewarding.

Does that make any sense? That???s why reward systems can???t be explained like the Lumpley Principle. It???s easy to say: ???You are playing a game by agreeing on shared happenings, therefore the game system is the system by which you agree on shared happenings.??? But the claims that are being made about reward systems are far more consequential than that.

I wonder is the stumbling block is seeing roleplay as a cyclical activity. Clearly if someone is not persuaded that their games are a systematic repeating cycle then that person isn???t going to understand the concept of reward cycle. Right now I???m having trouble thinking of my play experience as a systematic repeating cycle, and I think that???s why the concept of reward systems seems very artificial to me.

Frank: More clear! I think I'm understanding.

"Why should in-game changes, like changes to my character's effectiveness and stuff, be linked to my fulfillment as a player?" Is that right?

(You too, Tim?)

It wasn't exactly what I was going for, but I think your response will probably resolve the mental block I've got.

What I want to hear, and what I think what Frank wants to hear, is the answer to the question:

"Why should in-game changes, like changes to my character's effectiveness and stuff, define an instance of play?"

I was about to type: "Why should in-game changes, like changes to my character's effectiveness and stuff, be linked to my fulfillment as a player in such a way that they, of all mechanics, should be called the Reward System?"

Awesome. First thing to get down is the timeframe. Next we'll talk about diversity, but now let's talk about timeframe. We're talking here about changes to your character and stuff over time. What's linked to your fulfillment isn't the moment of changing your character, but the whole process of changing your character.

"Why should in-game changes, like putting a +1 on my character sheet, be linked to my fulfillment?"

Answer: it shouldn't. +1, -1, nobody cares, doesn't signify. Instead:

"Why should the whole process of making in-game changes over time, like changing my character's effectiveness overall or something, be linked to my fulfillment as a player in such a way that they, of all mechanics, should be called the reward system?"

Are you good with this? "Reward system" isn't about the changes themselves, it's about changing over time, cool?

Cool.

Euro: It's interesting that you seem to think that modern D&D is different from the old... Leveling up as an expression of "winning" is as old as the game. The emphasis D20 puts on dungeon crawling and tactical minis and "winning" is just the game going back to its roots...

Sure, leveling up expands your options, but not really, or not as much as one thinks. I've thought about it a lot, and I've realized most of the expanded options and increased depth is illusory. But knowing that doesn't kill it for me. I still enjoy playing a character for months of play (and perhaps years of play if I ever got a stable enough group of players and a stable enough game).

What's more common is that the increased scope of the characters actually finally introduces some instability into the game, and playing becomes unfun.

Of course that illusory progress does actually turn out to be critical to the fun. I guess that goes back to how important color is, even if it has no mechanical impact. There are also not-so illusory components. Yesterday one orc was a tough fight, today two orcs is an easy fight. But it was interesting to see, when I started running Cold Iron, where the monsters all had levels also, that even though the 1st level PCs would fight 10 1st level goblins, and the 5th level PCs would fight 10 5th level goblins, the feeling of improvement was still there, even though those numbers point out how illusory the improvement is. Of course there were other creatures that did go from hard to easy, and sometimes the 5th level PCs would whup 10 goblins because those 10 were 1st level goblins.

Vincent is right though, it's the whole process. And that process includes mechanical elements, color elements, plot elements, and more. And those non-mechanical changes are just as or more important than the mechanical changes. I see a lot of people expressing worry about the effect of mechanical changes in Dogs in the Vinyard, especially if people just improve improve improve. In my mind, they're missing the point of the game, or just projecting their experience with other games. Because it's not the mechanical changes that are important, but the thematic changes that reflect the address of premise creating theme.

Frank

Cool.

The whole process: the situation(s) that cause the change, the mechanics that facilitate the change, the experience of play with the change.

Oh and I'm in the UK so if I go quiet for 8 hours don't wait for me.

The whole process thing is why I say the XP system is not the reward system in D&D, any more than the gold piece system is; it's also why I don't think I'm disagreeing with Vincent. I'm just pointing out that XPs and GPs are both incidentals gained during the actual process. The real reward in dungeoncrawl-style games is facing the challenges of the dungeon and knowing when to take a break, get back to town, and convert XPs and GPs into something more useable.

Okay, so we've got the timeframe down. Remember in the old days, when it was "an instance of play" not "a reward cycle"? And I always described an instance of play as "like, hours, maybe most of a session, maybe a whole session, maybe multiple sessions"? That's still the timeframe we're talking about.

So now consider what can happen over the course of hours or sessions of play. I see two variables, four possibilities:

Variable 1: The fictional in-game situation. Is it different at the end of the measured time than it was at the beginning?

Variable 2: The players' in-game positions, reflected by what's on their character sheets (or whatever the game uses to track the players' positions). Are they different at the end of the measured time than they were at the beginning?

Cross them and you get four possibilities: neither change, both change, one changes but not the other, the other changes but not one.

Consider the "neither change" case. We play a game for, let's say, four hours. At the end of the four hours, our characters are exactly where they always were with regard to everything that matters, and as players we're exactly where we always were too. Like if we were to play Chess, except that no piece is allowed to capture any other piece; for four hours we just move our guys around without anybody making any advance toward anything.

Confirm for me that this sounds unfulfilling? I mean, maybe tolerable once in a while, but unfulfilling if that's the way your games pretty much always go.

With you.

Although, of course, there would be changes in 1) and 2) taking place over much shorter scales than the timeframe "like, hours, maybe most of a session, maybe a whole session, maybe multiple sessions."

Thanks for taking the time with this Vincent. I think that if this clicks I'll finally 'get' creative agendas. At present I understand them in an entirely abstract way as goals for roleplaying, but I've never been able to see what we as roleplayers actually try and hit the creative agendas with, because I've not been able to measure a reward cycle against the agenda in play.

Unfulfilling, check.

Cool.

If I say that a game's rules are a bridge between the fictional in-game situation and the players' positions as represented by character sheets or whatever, is that cool? Anybody want a quick refresher on that?

If I say that very broadly, with lots of interesting case-by-case nuances, resolution rules bridge from the players' positions to the in-game fiction, while reward rules bridge from the fiction to the character sheets, is everybody still with me?

Resolution rules bridge from the players' positions to the in-game fiction, still with you all the way.

Can I just clarify though, when you say: "Reward rules bridge from the fiction to the character sheets." are you (albeit broadly) saying that exclusively? By which I mean are you claiming that Reward rules are the principle/only means by which fiction informs the player positions?

Nope! Here's what I'd say:

Resolution rules do bridge from position to fiction and might bridge from fiction to position.

Reward rules do bridge from fiction to position and might bridge from position to fiction.

Again, speaking broadly.

There's also bridging from position to position without touching the fiction, and from fiction to fiction without touching our positions, looping through our interactions as players, but let's leave those aside as nuances. For now at least.

Hold it for a second there. So basically there are two types of rules that change stuff: Resolution rules, and reward rules. Resolution rules always affect what happens in the fiction. Check. They sometimes affect the numbers (or whatever) on the character sheet, like marking off hit points. Check. Reward rules (as by Ron's definition (b) and (c)) always affect the numbers (or whatever) on the character sheet. Um, always? How about changes to positioning? Not that I could think of a rule that directly affects positioning and is not resolution.

But then again, where does resolution stop and reward begin? Ron's definition doesn't say anything about that. Fallout in Dogs is reward. Losing hit points in D&D is resolution. What about getting a derangement in Vampire or Cthulhu? What about losing your sword-hand in The Riddle of Steel?

Reward rules sometimes also affect the fiction. Like, um, for example the titles in old D&D, where a third level fighter was called a veteran (or whatever), and color stuff like that? Or do you mean positioning here?

Ah, damn. Note to self: Check Glossary more often. I'm not sure if I got "positioning" right. I gather "positioning" is the implicit, non-numerical part of a player's ability to affect the fiction through a character, whereas "effectiveness" is the explicit, numerical part. If that isn't correct, my above post might not make much sense. Should I try again?

Oh wow.

First, try reading "or whatever" really inclusively. Reward rules bridge from the fiction to the real-world players' positions, however you track those and whatever they consist of, be they numbers on character sheets or whatever. In Universalis, it's how many pennies you have in front of you on the table. In my old Robin Hood game, you wrote characters names in boxes on a communal sheet. In Wushu, it's informal - did you read Emily's post on Story Games about freeform reward mechanics? I consider it definitive.

(This is just what I said in the opening post: read "usually" as a meaningful part of that sentence, not as filler.)

Forget about resolution vs. reward for now. With me so far?

Uh, I changed thoughts midstream there, so pardon my garbledness. Here's a better one.

I'll back off of resolution vs. reward, no problem.

So, stepping back, you can look at game rules' functioning in two directions, from the fiction to the players' positions, or from the players' positions to the fiction. Good?

As a sub-point, the players have positions that can change even if they don't have numbers on character sheets, per Emily's excellent Story Games post. Still good?

Hello,

For those who are interested in my thoughts about reward and resolution (one ending, the other beginning), my first post in the second Frostfolk thread

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21546.0

may be helpful or interesting.

Best, Ron

Linkzord.

Thanks Vincent and Ron. Give me a few days to respond to this, please, since daytime job and preparation for Spiel Essen are eating up way too much time at the moment.

Sure thing.

Thanks for the clarifier Vincent.

I'm cool with the conversation taking a hiatus, but I want you to appreciate I'm literally hungry to get what's coming.

So I'll sneak in a preview.

If I say that narrativist play depends on two things - 1. the escalation and resolution of the fictional situation; 2. the players' participation in said escalation and resolution - do you know what I mean?

With you. In the context of this discussion, what scale of fictional situation are we talking about? To use Dogs as an example, there's the shortest term, "throw a punch, pull a knife, pull a gun," scale of escaltion. (Escaltion of conflict?) But there's also a much larger scale of escalation that goes on from town to town in which you try and make the necessary judgements more demanding. (Escalation of premise?)

There's probably plenty of in between scales as well in which escalation is taking place. I just wanted to note that both your 1) and 2) apply on either extreme of the spectrum, and get you to clarify what scope of escalation you think is relevant here. (Of course, all of it is a valid answer.)

Hi Tim,

I think Vincent said it as I would say it: "escalation and resolution." I'd add that the reward cycle is completed upon resoultion.

In Dogs, the game centers around the escalation of conflict. The reward cycle is based around the player *resolving* the conflict—one way or another. They might shoot, they might Give, but the cycles been leading up to that moment. When the moment arrives there's the "Ahhhh," moment—and everyone gears up to head into another conflict to do it again.

Then there's the uber-resolution of the town. But all the conflicts that lead up to the resolution fo the tale of the town are simply nested withing the uber-conflct. It's kind of all the same thing. I see them as less being ends of the spectrum as well turned phrases in a well made poem. (The phrases being the conflict resolution, and the poem being the resolution of a town.)

I'd offer that in Sorcerer, the cycle is based on Humanity Rolls. I think when all cyclanders are firing, the point of the game is to create critical situations where Humanity rolls are called for (or asked for).

Using Vincent's points (1. the escalation and resolution of the fictional situation; 2. the players' participation in said escalation and resolution) we see that the escalation is present (the game is about the stakes of Humanity, the resolution of the act isn't about "did I kill him" but "what happenened to my huminity after I killed this person," and the player obviously has participation in knowing he or she is having the PC take actions that will demand a Humanity Check.

Then you just do it again.

The Kicker resolution, like the town resolution for Dogs, is just the uber-version of a Humanity Check.

Christopher

Hey Tim.

To Christopher's post, I'd add about situation and scene. Here's how I think of it:

A situation is, like, a list of who's interests are what, plus any salient details about who's where. A situation is abstract, imaginary, disembodied. Sister May's agenda is to overthrough the US; it's in her interests for Brother Jed and Sister Rosaria to back her without question. That's an element of a situation; this particular situation has at least three, probably four or five, elements in addition.

Then you embody the situation in scenes. You take this abstraction, this list of information, and you make it material: "So Sister May goes into town with Brother Jed. While he's buying bandages and medicine, she buys the gun shop bare." That's a scene.

Over the course of however many scenes, where the characters run around and do things and interact and fight and make up and kill and die, right, the situation, the higher-level, abstract, situation, should change. For instance, maybe after three scenes between the Dogs, we'd say this of the situation instead: Sister May's agenda is to overthrough the US; it's in her interests for Brother Jed to back off and let her try, and for Sister Rosaria to continue to back her without question.

It's this higher-scale situation that I'm talking about. Punches and conversations - Dogs' conflict resolution rules - happen within scenes. A series of scenes is the process by which the in-game fictional situation develops.

Make sense?

Gotcha. Narrativist play depends on the escalation and resolution of the fictional situation, where situation is of the scale defined above.

To Chris K,

I've taken on board what you've said and it's sort of sitting on a mental back burner for a bit. I've not got enough play experience of Dogs to identify the "ahh" moment you refer to, so I'm guessing at where it would come in between the scales of fallout and reflection. I've also not even read sorceror, so everytime anyone says 'humanity check' I get a flashback to Vampire.

I just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring you, I'm just struggling with what you have to say.

Vincent,

Having re-read the thread it now seems interesting that you talk of rules bridging between player positions and the fictional situation, rather than bridging between position and scene. Clearly most conventional rulebook text (I can't judge if the rest of what you call rules is working at this level.) concerns itself with what happens at the level of things happening within a scene, so it seems odd that you'd want to view the rules as principally functioning at the level of situation.

I'm assuming that is because anything of lasting significance that comes out of a scene will be reflected by a change in situation and probably a corresponding change in player position. Am I understanding that right?

I'm assuming that is because anything of lasting significance that comes out of a scene will be reflected by a change in situation and probably a corresponding change in player position. Am I understanding that right?

Yep. Astute.

"Probably a corresponding change in player position" is the reward system at work.

So you have these two things developing in parallel, right? The fictional situation and the players' positions. And a reward system is the rules by which changes in the former become reflected in the latter, right?

So here are three different kinds of reward systems I'd like you to imagine:

1) A reward system where, as the fictional situation develops, the rules change the players' positions counter to the forward motion of the situation.

Let's use my character Sister May for example, with a reward system that penalizes me as a player whenever Sister May loses a fight. See how that'd act as a brake on the developing situation? I'd play it cautious, skirting around the issues instead of taking them on, until I have the clear advantage. If you're playing Brother Jed, you'd do the same, and now the conflicts between us aren't about overthrowing the US, they're about who get the advantage in that conflict, which now may well never come.

2) A reward system where, as the fictional situation develops, the rules leave the players' positions unchanged with regard to the forward motion of the situation. They might or might not change the players' positions at all; if they do, they do so orthogonally to the developing situation.

Now the reward system penalizes me whenever Sister May sins, for example. Here's the list of sins and here's the associated penalties, and they're straightforward sins like "sleeps with a guy," "lies," and "steals money or goods." So I don't have her sin - so what? It's irrelevent to her situation.

3) A reward system where, as the fictional situation develops, the rules change the players' positions according to the direction of change in the situation.

Now let's say that the reward system penalizes me whenever I have Sister May give ground without a fight. Fighting and winning is good, fighting and losing is just as good, it's losing without the fight that's bad. Now the reward system is a goad to the situation, see it?

I should be getting awfully close to an answer to your question, here. See the link between reward rules and creative agenda? Narrativist play requires an escalating dynamic situation plus sustained player participation. The reward system is feedback between those two: it can reinforce one with the other, undercut one with the other, or disengage one from the other.

And now the importance of the earlier comments about escalation become clear, because once we accept that narrativist play hinges on escaltion and resolution of fictional situation only option three is going to drive play.

Note that Gamist play also is supported most strongly by Option Three.  I think Simulationist play might tend to kinda default to Option Two, but I'll need to give that a bit more thought.

Okay, let's summarise where we are so far:

1) Over a reward cycle, which is as yet of indeterminate length but which is of the scale of "like, hours, maybe most of a session, maybe a whole session, maybe multiple sessions," we will observe changes in both player position and fictional situation.

2) Some of the game mechanics serve to bridge the fictional situation and the players positions. Not all of these are reward mechanics, but some, particularly those that bridge from situation to position, are likely candidates.

3) Narrativist play relies on escalation and resolution of elements in the fictional situation.

4) (Where I think we're going) If the escalation and resolution of these elements continual affects the players positions in accordance with the direction of the fictional situation, then the players positions will drive the escalation and resolution further, faster, more.

I don't like pre-empting you, so I'll leave it for you to confirm or refute 4).