Consequence and Reward in RPGs


I like to compare trends in the game industry as a whole with individual segments, such as RPGs. Often what’s happening “out there” will turn up in the individual segments, if it hasn’t already.



The most striking trends in hobby games is the movement from games of consequence to games of reward. Players in hobby games in the past have been expected to earn what they received, but more and more in hobby games we’re seeing games that reward players for participation. This is a general trend in our society, where schoolkids expect rewards for participation rather than for achieving excellence, and in fact excellence is sometimes not allowed!

Reward-based games have always been with us via party games, and to a lesser extent family games. Virtually no one cares who wins a party game, and all of these games tend to be very simple and fully accessible to non-gamers. Mass-market games are much more reward-based then consequence-based. Hobby gamers might call them “not serious”.

A reward-based game is more like a playground than an organized competition, and the opposition in reward-based games tends to be weak/inconsequential/nonexistent.

Home video “save games” have always tended to make video games a “you can’t lose” proposition. We’re moving beyond that.

With free-to-play video games dominating the mobile market and a strong influence in other markets, designers reward players so that they’ll play the game long enough to decide to spend money in it. We see players who blame the game if they fail, who expect to be led around by the hand, even in games that people purchase.

Tabletop RPGs generally involve an unspoken pact between the players and the GM, so that the players can have fun and not have to worry too much about losing. But the game tends to be more enjoyable when there’s a possibility of failure - the triumphs are sweeter. The co-creator of D&D (Gary Gygax) put it this way in one of his last publications (Hall of Many Panes) "...a good campaign must have an element of danger and real risk or else it is meaningless - death walks at the shoulder of all adventurers, and that is the true appeal of the game."

Classic games involve conflict. Many so-called games nowadays do not involve conflict, and there are role-playing "games" that are storytelling exercises without much opposition.

Reflections of this trend in RPGs often involve abundant healing and ways to save characters from death, such as the ridiculous Revivify spell, usable by a mere fifth level cleric in D&D Fifth Edition, that brings back the dead on the field of battle.

35 years ago, a young player GMed his first game for our shared-characters campaign. He really wanted to ensure the players had a good time - so he gave out lots of magic items. We wanted players to earn what they received, so myself and the other lead GM waved our hands after the adventure and most of those items disappeared.

I’m a senior citizen, in my roots a wargamer, and I prefer games of consequence. But that's not where the world is headed.

contributed by Lewis Pulsipher
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Libramarian

Adventurer
<shrug> I'm perfectly okay if gamers of this generation are less competitive and challenge-driven, as a whole (obviously counterexamples abound) than gamers of a previous generation. So what? We're a little wimpier than our forebears? Oh well, we're nicer and better people because of it.
This is a pretty odd comment. Firstly, there's no connection between liking competitive games and being a jerk. If anything, jerks tend to dislike and react poorly to (fair) competition. Secondly, competition is a separate issue from the topic of this thread.

Thirdly, [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] doesn't actually say any of those things about gamers today. He's criticising a trend in game design, not gamer preference.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
Don't tell [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. He'll be heartbroken!
I just went back and did a quick review of my old Lewis Pulsipher thread and didn't see any posts from you in it . . . judge not until ye have at least dipped your toe into the water!

Like I said in that thread, the stuff about how to run dungeon crawls is good advice (I think) but not apposite to me, because I suck at that and don't do it. But what I would call the "anti-railroading" stuff is (in my view) first rate, and still influences how I think about RPGing and GMing.

People like different kinds of games. Some like a more forgiving game that allows them to live out heroic fantasies with a lesser chance of failure. Others prefer a less forgiving, grittier game with death stalking them at every turn.
Were the rules "harder"? Aside from being terribly-edited and occasionally inconsistent, I don't actually think so. Old-School DMs could easily achieve whip-saws in lethality just by switching monsters. You want to increase death in 1e, just increase the number of "save or die" events and vice-versa. Heck, if you're in the upper single digit levels or higher, that might be your only hope, if you want to whack a fighter type. They've just got waayyy too many hp WRT monster damage output and "to hit" numbers. BUT! So what? You've probably got more than one Raise Dead scroll lying around.

<snip>

Now, could a DM just kill characters through pure arbitrary malice? Sure, but I don't see how that's any different than it is today, other than perhaps culturally being more or less acceptable, and I'll bet that varies a lot between modern groups as well. However, I'm not sure that increasing random/arbitrary lethality makes the game "harder". Its not like we didn't complete the dungeons anyway. Unless you want to count the paperwork necessary for occasionally making up a new character....
Here, I'm with Ratskinner. If we still get to finish the dungeon, albeit with a new PC, then how was it "harder"? In effect we're talking about tournament play with unlimited retries. That might test certain skills, but - without being told more - I'm not seeing how it makes things more difficult or less forgiving.

And if the "death stalking them at every turn" is meant to be emotionally draining for the players, then - in the right circumstances - so might any other form of story loss.

If the "easier" games are meant to be ones where the PCs (and thus their players) just go on a tour of the GM's world/story idea - which might be one way of understanding the original DL modules, or at least some of them - then that doesn't create a challenge, but clearly it's not meant to, and so it's hardly a criticism of "gameworld tourism" RPGing that it doesn't give rise to the same sorts of game-play challenges that dungeon crawling does.

What does "challenging" in this context mean? I can look at a game like Blades in the Dark, which is a heavily story driven game, pretty strongly in the Narrative camp, where "getting the treasure" doesn't really mean anything and combat isn't the point of play, and see that challenge in that game means putting in as good of a performance as you can in order to entertain the group.

I used to play The Dying Earth RPG, some years ago. Fantastic game. But, the challenge there was to immerse yourself in a Vancian setting, complete with it's own idiom and language. Tons of fun. But, apparently, not a "challenge"? I'm going to tell you right now that if you actually played the game, you'd find it all sorts of challenging.
I agree with this, and think it is consistent with what I've just typed. Those aren't "setting tourism" RPGs, but they're not wargame-y dungeon-crawling type RPGs either. The challenge of playing well is framed and located in a completely different element of play.

I mean, the consequence for playing The Dying Earth badly is that everyone thinks your would-be Vancian dialogue sucks. That seems to have as big a potential to be a major consequence as making a mistake in the mapping of a room that gets a party member killed. (I mean, there are whole hosts of ENworld posters who object to "speak my PC's words" social resolution because it requires others at the table to judge the dialogue of the player. I think some of those posters would find The Dying Earth very demanding!)

It's just the pain and embarrassment when your character dies. It's gruelling to roll up a new one and start over. It's especially gruelling to not have anyone else to blame.
I wrote all the above before getting to this post. It answers the question - where is the challenge? And the response it prompted in me was - there are other RPGs that are pretty different from a classic dungeoncrawl that can also generate a challenge that is something like this.

Reading you (Libramarian's) post, rereading my old thread, and thinking about these comments is making me feel more that - at least as far as RPGs go (I know nothing about video games and very little about board games) - the main contrast I would want to draw would be between "setting/story tourism" RPGing (which can come in different forms) and "player decisions really matter to outcomes" RPGing (which also can come in different forms).

Naturally that framing reflects my own interests. And in a recent thread my way of thinking about this contrast proved controversial with some posters!
 

pemerton

Legend
you have things like Empire of the Petal Throne, which is damn near as old as RPG's, where the point of play wasn't so much about challenge, but about exploration and interaction with the setting. While EPT was based on the OD&D ruleset, it approached play very differently.
I don't know anything about how it was actually played at Barker's table, but the rulebook is kind-of confusing: it sets up all this intricate setting stuff, but then strongly implies (through a combination of mechanics, GM advice and examples of play) that the actual gameplay will be pretty standard dungeoncrawl stuff but with weirder names on everything.

Maybe it was unrealistic to expect a published RPG at that time to depart so strongly from the then default D&D approach.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
in my current game there's a Dwarf with a "Dwarven Thrower" hammer - when thrown it turns into a (usually screaming) Dwarf, splats against the target, returns to hammer form and flies back to its owner.

You must have had amazing luck finding secret doors. :)

First off, best version of Dwarven Thrower I've encountered. Props to whoever came up with it.

RE: secret doors
Travel with multiple elves.

Turning back to the topic at hand...at the very least, our differing experiences seem to indicate that any perceived "difficulty" or "toughness" back in the day is an artifact of DMing choices and not the rules. A thing in which, I suspect, there is still a great deal of variety.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using EN World mobile app
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
I don't know anything about how it was actually played at Barker's table, but the rulebook is kind-of confusing: it sets up all this intricate setting stuff, but then strongly implies (through a combination of mechanics, GM advice and examples of play) that the actual gameplay will be pretty standard dungeoncrawl stuff but with weirder names on everything.

Maybe it was unrealistic to expect a published RPG at that time to depart so strongly from the then default D&D approach.

I have often (over the decades) picked up a new game hoping for a promise of new gaming turf only to be greeted by a reskinned or reworked D&D. I give a great deal of credence to the idea that it "poisoned the well" for rpg/story games. (Not that I consider it toxic.) In particular, Star Trek and Supers stood out to me as two areas that aren't well-served by traditional rpg mechanics and yet suffered many quixotic attempts at it.


Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
That Adam Conover video is excellent. I'm so tired of hearing about GENERATION X, Generation Y, millennials, etc. generally, any statement with one of those terms is going to be a vapid overgeneralization.

It is up to the author to make their case. You're basically claiming the new generation doesn't want to work for stuff; Adam Conover, in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFwok9SlQQ , points out this has been an accusation against the new generation since at least 1968.

Also, how you phrased that shows part of the problem. Old people get seriously grumpy when a younger person claims that the new generation is better in some fashion. In fact, most groups of people get annoyed when someone from a separate group claim people in their group are better than people in the first group. But you treat it as a problem of the young.

Psychology and sociology are hard disciplines. They involve things that are very hard to accurately study, where it's hard to get a good accurate sample and hard to measure what you want to measure. The fact that people want evidence for claims isn't something you should object to.



The coexistence of Pandemic and Pandemic Legacy, and the way that many people who owned the first bought the second and enjoyed it, indicate that they bring something to the table to the players that their non-legacy versions don't. The subject is a bit off-topic, but it's a casual dismissal, even "despise", of a style of games.



So basically you want a participation trophy. For all your claims of wanting a challenge, when pushed to fit in a full thesis in 500 words, you blame your failures on the format. If you cannot communicate what you want in 500 words, then don't write in 500 words, and if that means you don't get published here, so be it. If it's a fool's errand to figure out what an author wants based on their writing, then it's the author's fault, no matter what the length.



Early D&D, where you started with a few hitpoints and died when you hit zero, and save or dies were plentiful, mean that you die when you roll poorly.

Despite having another 1300 words, you don't seem to have made any attempt to back up your claim that there's a change of this manner in games.




Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
Also, can someone please define what [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] means by "legacy games"?

Legacy games are a new type of board game named after their first two major examples: Risk Legacy and Pandemic Legacy. To explain by example: Pandemic is a board game that runs in 90 minutes where you try and save the world from epidemics. Pandemic Legacy takes that and makes each full game of the original into a subgame covering one month of a (really, really bad) year. During and after each turn, things change; cities that had outbreaks start rioting (marked as stickers on the board), characters in those cities get scars (disadvantages) (marked as stickers on the character card), and winning teams get to add positives (again, marked by stickers) to the board or cards. And the game tells you to open up certain sealed boxes or read certain previously unrevealed cards that make major changes to the way the game plays or tear up previous cards that won't be used any more. So after you're done with the entire year, maybe 16-20 hours of game time, the game's done, it's not resettable to the start and it's not designed to be played as is. One group of my friends framed the board and hung it up, as a tribute to a grueling awesome game.

It's not like the people I was talking to, including that group, didn't think about "planned obsolesce" before buying these games. Risk Legacy can be played on the modified board after you've complete the series of games. Gloomhaven offers vinyl stickers that can be removed from the game board. But ultimately, most of us serious board gamers (and these legacy games so far are not targeted at mass market stores) have paid that much money for a game that hasn't seen more than one or two plays, and Pandemic Legacy and Gloomhaven are really fun, so this style of game is gaining some popularity in the community. I expect to see a bloom of games in this style, followed by a great dieback when most of them are crap, as per Sturgeon's law.
 

pemerton

Legend
Star Trek and Supers stood out to me as two areas that aren't well-served by traditional rpg mechanics and yet suffered many quixotic attempts at it.
The only sci-fi game I've ever played is Traveller. Pretty trad in some ways (ultra-sim with virtually no metagame mechanics) but different from D&D in a few key ways (no XP, no classes/races, all skill-based, etc). But, in play, not likely to give you many Star Trek moments.

The only Supers game I've ever played is MHRP. At the moment I've got a Wolverine/Iceman/Nightcrawler/War Machine vs Dr Doom and Clan Yashida game on hiatus, and am running a fantasy campaign using a Hackers' Guide-inspired hack. I really enjoy this game - it's pretty light-hearted but I find does a nice job of incorporating inane player hijinks into the resolution.

It's fairly non-trad (and very non-sim) but I don't know how far from traditional RPG mechanics you would rate it.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
The only sci-fi game I've ever played is Traveller. Pretty trad in some ways (ultra-sim with virtually no metagame mechanics) but different from D&D in a few key ways (no XP, no classes/races, all skill-based, etc). But, in play, not likely to give you many Star Trek moments.

The only Supers game I've ever played is MHRP. At the moment I've got a Wolverine/Iceman/Nightcrawler/War Machine vs Dr Doom and Clan Yashida game on hiatus, and am running a fantasy campaign using a Hackers' Guide-inspired hack. I really enjoy this game - it's pretty light-hearted but I find does a nice job of incorporating inane player hijinks into the resolution.

It's fairly non-trad (and very non-sim) but I don't know how far from traditional RPG mechanics you would rate it.

I like MHRP. I tend to put it in a (very) similar box as Fate, actually. I think they could both are a little over-rated as "storygames", IMHO, but great fun digging into the narrative space with table creativity.
 

Hussar

Legend
Ok, I've been cogitating on this for a while now, and I think I'll present my rebuttal to the original argument of this article. As I understand it, (between this thread and the thread that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] linked where [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] also posted a similar point) gaming has shifted from games of consequence to games of reward. Now, I'm going to focus on D&D, since this is an RPG site, to provide three examples of why this is simply not true. There has been no shift in games, not really. D&D started out with "game of reward" built right into its DNA.

AD&D Examples of Game of Reward

Example 1: Two characters, A and B, exact same in all ways save that Character A has a 17 in his prime stat and Character B has a 14. The two characters go through exactly the same adventures, meet exactly the same monsters, play identical campaigns. At the end of the campaign, Character B is high level and has 300 000 xp. Congratulations! Character A has 330 000 xp. Why? Because he has a high prime stat. Despite not doing a single thing to earn that significant xp award, Character A receives a reward for playing that character.

Example 2: Same two characters, A and B. This time, identical elves. Same stats, same everything. Both proceed in a dungeon and do exactly the same things. However, in Character B's case, his elven find secret doors 1/6 (for passing by), discovers a secret door leading to a significant treasure trove while the DM in Character A's case rolled a 2 instead of a 1 for the automatic check and thus the treasure was missed. So, Character B's group gains a significant reward - treasure, XP, possibly magic items - where the player of Character B did absolutely nothing to earn it. Blind, random chance. Drop your quarter, pull the level, get your prize.

Example 3: Two players beginning a new campaign are rolling up their characters. Player A is on a serious hot streak, six rolls, nothing lower than a 13, fantastic. Player B is unloved by the dice gods and his highest stat is a 13. Now, Player A is rewarded in several ways. Firstly, he can now play any character he wants to play since his rolls are so high. Additionally, any character he plays will automatically gain XP bonuses, not for doing anything, but, simply for having high stats. Finally, any character that Player A plays will automatically be more powerful and more effective in the game than anything Player B can play. What did he do to earn that? Dice fapped really well? Do we really consider that earning an award?

It's not like these three examples are rare, corner cases that will never come up. These are common, basic elements of the game that are likely to be seen every single session. So, no, the notion that you had to "earn your award" back in the day just isn't supported by the actual game that was written. So much of your reward was simple, random chance. It was the Chutes and Ladders approach to game design where random chance is mistaken for difficulty.

Compare those three examples to how they roll out in a modern RPG. In every example, it becomes a case of player choice having consequences. High stats? Yup, you can do that, but, in doing so, you will have lower stats elsewhere that will cause problems. Good abilities to notice stuff? Sure, you can do that, but, it will cost you in other ways. In every case, it is player choice that carries the consequences, not random chance and, in fact, random chance is often mitigated as much as possible. We don't die roll characters anymore, we use point buy or standard arrays as the standard method for chargen. So on and so forth.

The more things change...
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top