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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
But it really isn't that cut and dry. Like, for example I love fighters but by-the-book, fighters are pretty dry. They hit things with a stick and then do it again.
Which, when combined with a personality and some creative flair, is quite enough for some people. :)
So I went through some CharOp boards to find out "What can I do with a fighter to make my gameplay more interesting?" And I found several guides on how to do some slick stuff (like charge, knockback, and so forth). I had no idea that this form of playing a fighter even existed. To put that back into MTG terms, these are cards I didn't even own, much less even knew were part of the game.
And the bright side is, in D&D you don't have to break the bank to get your mitts on some of those "cards". :)

For some players (of whom I suspect you might be one) differences between characters need to be reflected in the mechanics somehow in order to be relevant, or interesting. For me, however, it's really not that important whether my fighter and your fighter are - under the hood - using exactly the same game mechanics; I'm more interested in the personalities and what they lead to in play.

An analogy might be two cars. One is a basic rock-solid reliable 4-door sedan. The other is a flashy bunch of chrome and sheet metal that you can see coming a mile away and that turns heads on every street. Yet under the hood of each car is found exactly the same engine, same moving parts, and same chassis.

In a robust game like most editions of D&D and MTG its really not hard to be good and creative at the same time. It's more like one of those 2-dimensional grids where "creative" is up and down and "effective at the table" is left and right.
OK, fair enough. It still comes down to preference, however, which part of the grid you're going to prioritize. For some, effective takes priority - go right on the grid then see how far up you can dial the creative side. For others, like me, it's go top-creative first then see if there's any rightward movement to be had into the realm of effective; and not care too much if there isn't any.

Lastly though I would say that being creative doesn't come from the game. That comes from the player. Without the imagination of the player to detail in the appearance, attitude, hopes, dreams, fears, desires and general taste in clothing, it doesn't matter which feats you take or how many classes you dip into. That is where the creativity of a character really happens.
I completely agree with this when it comes to the run of play that happens at the table. However some parts of the creative side do come from the game mechanics in games 3e and later during character generation, when it comes to determining one's "build", if you're trying to make the mechanics line up with the character/personality concept.

Lan-"going to the top on the creative side is good, going slightly over the top is even better"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
Y'know, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], there's another point to remember here. We've been going back and forth about 1st level characters, but, there's a great deal more to the game than one single level. Let's take our fighters and make them 3rd level. Now, a 3rd level 1e fighter has 15 HP, Plate and Shield (that's pretty much given and it's not unreasonable for our 3rd level fighter to have a +1 shield either) giving him an AC of -1. Now, that fighter is pretty much invulnerable to the orc. The orc needs a 20 to hit and has to hit at least twice for max damage to knock the fighter down - a 1 in 6400 chance of that orc being able to defeat that fighter.

The 3e fighter, has a worth by the book of 800 gp. So, Half plate is the best he can do - no Dex bonus, so he's got an AC of 17 (no shield remember, you insisted on a 2-h weapon. He has 28 HP on average (12+6x2+2x2) Our 3e orc, with a +4 attack bonus, hits on a 13 or better and has a crit range of 3d12+12 damage. So, our orc is hitting 40% of the time with a 5% crit chance. Meaning he's got a 2% chance of critting our fighter and instantly killing him (with a 1 better than average damage roll).

So, our 3e orc has about a 3000 times better chance of killing our fighter than the 1e orc.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Y'know, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], there's another point to remember here. We've been going back and forth about 1st level characters, but, there's a great deal more to the game than one single level. Let's take our fighters and make them 3rd level. Now, a 3rd level 1e fighter has 15 HP, Plate and Shield (that's pretty much given and it's not unreasonable for our 3rd level fighter to have a +1 shield either) giving him an AC of -1.
Er.....how are you getting -1 out of straight plate and shield +1?

Plate gives AC 3. A shield gives 1 on top of that (by RAW; though many tables make it 2), and the shield's +1 gives another pip...which - again by RAW - gets you down to an AC of 1, not -1.

Which means the orc, while still having a hard go of it to hit you, can do so on less than a nat. 20.

That said: if our intrepid knight happens to have dex 16, thus giving 2 more points of AC, your -1 suddenly makes sense.

Lanefan
 

S'mon

Legend
Only problem is, that's not the only game in town and that was recognized, again, virtually from day 1. In a Hexploration game (which is about as old school as you can get), there becomes very pragmatic issues regarding lethality. In a Mega-Dungeon game, when your PC dies, your group heads back to town, and you get a new PC. No problems, it's fairly plausible. However, in a hexploration game, where you're in the middle of the Isle of Dread, it becomes a bit implausible when the fifth stranger you've met, just happens to be yet another wandering PC who joins your group to replace your latest casualty. It makes that game less fun for the participants if death is frequent and random.

The traditional real-world and Classic-D&D approach to large scale wilderness exploration was to have a party of at least 30, and often 100+. Only in the 20th century did people start to think it was wise to go into the Darkest Amazon in single-figure groups. I recall when my son Bill explored the Isle of Dread playing Mentzer Expert D&D, he had around 120 knights, men at arms, and a couple Clerics and Magic-Users with his main M-U PC - and lost around half of the Ftr-1s. On this more realistic approach, old school lethality is not a problem. If a PC dies you just promote a promising NPC from the entourage.
 

S'mon

Legend
My take on the XP bonus for good prime requisites is that it is meant to enforce a modest degree of genre fidelity (stronger characters are more likely to be turned into fighters). Once you have AD&D-style allocation of stats rather than stats rolled in order, this function becomes largely redundant (because if you want to play a MU you can stick you good stat into INT, and if you really want to play a strong wizard what's the harm?) and probably the rule should be dropped - an early case of D&D cargo cult-ism about rules, where the rule lingers on even though its rationale has faded.

Letting players assign rolled stats was one of the stupidest ever design decisions IMNSHO. :D If you are going to allow allocation, you absolutely need to be using point buy or an array. Conversely, rolling in
order has much to commend it, creating (birthing?) organic-feeling characters who often seem
to have a sort of life of their own that point buy/array/roll-then-assign does not provide.
 

S'mon

Legend
Which probably makes it better suited for the AP-type experience of a combo of "tourism" and "challenge" than 3E/PF, which has the continual rocket-tag threat of high lethality. Clever design by WotC.

Yes, IME 5e is much better designed for AP play than is Pathfinder. With Pathfinder/3e, either PCs are at constant risk of random death, or the players 'win' the build pre-game and consistently trivialise encounters.
5e is much more like 4e in that players feel challenged by the battles, but random lethality is low.

5e is I think better than 4e for Paizo style APs in that it is a more balanced approach to the
social/exploration/combat pillars, whereas 4e is poor at exploration, decent at social if you don't
get tied up in 'social skill challenges' (3e/PF poor at social for AP play since as written the
social skills & magic can easily change NPC behaviour far off the AP rails). 5e combat also
faster than 4e combat, which is good for linear play - linear strings of fights get very grindy in 4e.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

S'mon

Legend
So, our 3e orc has about a 3000 times better chance of killing our fighter than the 1e orc.

Your 1e numbers aren't quite right, but yes, losing 3rd level PCs to random mooks is a major feature of 3e/PF! :)

My 23 hp Cleric-3 went into the final battle of the adventure vs the BBEG, but before she could do
anything a mook attacked her with a battleaxe, critted for x3, rolled well and killed her instantly.
 


S'mon

Legend
I've never tried that but find it very easy to believe!

But with this you're just trying to bait me!

My final 4e Loudwater adventure I adapted Assault on Nightworm Fortress to be Shar's Orcus-occupied Pillars of Night. Even cutting out most of the 30 encounters it definitely got grindy. Looking at blog http://frloudwater.blogspot.co.uk/ looks like we played it sessions 95-103, or 9 sessions, covering levels (end of) 26 through level 29. The way high level 4e is, that will also have meant 9 battles. Definitely grindy.

In terms of social interaction, 5e has a very light skill system that resembles 4e without the skill challenges more than it does 3e. I have found it to be a good system in play which does not get in the way of roleplayed interaction, but provides reasonable support - I can call for Persuasion, Deception or Intimidate check if I'm unsure of NPC reaction. I don't experience the 3e issue of all the CHA 8 half-orc PCs hiding behind the Bard 'Face' character with +20 Diplomacy. For one thing, Backgrounds can be leveraged to ensure different PCs are the best to take the lead in different situations.

However 5e does lack the sophistication of Basic/Expert - no Reaction Table, NPC Loyalty system, Retainer CHA limit or formalised recruitment system, no NPC followers for high level PCs. In terms of supporting social play it beats 4e in various ways - eg it is *much* more practical to have NPCs accompanying PCs in 5e than 4e - but not to the heady heights of 1981 Moldvay/Cook/Marsh. :D
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Read the 3.5 SRD - it's a Falchion. They dropped the Greataxe because of the X3 crit modifier.

Read the 3.5 Monster Manual. The greataxe is there in the combat section and picture. It wasn't dropped. They can have either. Hell, it's in the freaking SRD as well. You need to read better.

Banded is 90 gp, Chain is 75. The odds that you can afford chain and not banded are very, very slight. 5d4x10 gp averages over 100 gp (120 to be exact). Most likely, the fighter has banded.

Wrong. When you add in 30 gold for the two handed sword and then actual supplies, which easily totaled 30-60 gold, depending on what you wanted, that extra 15 gold was critical. 90 for banded and 30 for a two handed sword was 120 gold. The average gold roll for a fighter was 120 gold. Sure, you could get those two things, but then you starved, had no backup weapon, or any other supplies.

Yuppers. Only thing is, that fighter almost guaranteed has an AC of 2. Considering you gave him a 16 for Str, many gamers would simply put something else in Str and get that 16 in Dex for a -2 AC bonus, giving him a 1 AC. Now our orc hits 10% of the time.
IF you were allowed to place stats(not all rolling types allowed it) and IF you actually rolled that well, and IF the player enjoyed the concept of a weak fighter and be able to use the HEAVY armor and weapon you are giving him, and IF he didn't want extra hit points and survival chances from the 16, and IF he didn't want extra survivability from the save bonus wisdom gave.

If after all of that he chose the armor you are talking about, he still doesn't have a 2 AC. You don't get a 2 AC without a shield and he has a two handed sword.

Only when you insist on ignoring what's actually in the game. Our 3e orc with a falchion has a 15% chance of dealing a crit - which will pretty much automatically drop the fighter with a decent chance of outright killing him. IOW, our 3e orc has a better chance of dropping the fighter. Even with a greataxe, his chances of outright killing the fighter are only 5% less. 3d12+12 damage will obliterate any 1st level fighter.
The crit is a non-starter. The orc probably doesn't survive long enough to crit with an axe, dying in 1 round, 2 if it is lucky. And 4d4+8 still obliterates the fighter. The most likely outcome is that the fighter kills it before it ever crits, and if the fighter has improved initiative, which most took, probably before the orc even gets to swing.

Let's be honest here. In any edition, fighter vs orc, smart money is on the fighter. The 1e orc only hits about 20% of the time and needs (typically) two hits to drop the fighter.
Barely typical. The average first level fighter had 5-6 hit points. Average roll + no con bonus. The orc did 4-5 points average on a hit. The 5's match up fairly well.


Meanwhile, our 1e fighter (ignoring Unearthed Arcana which dramatically ups the fighter's damage output, never minding what 2e did), hits about 45% of the time and drops the orc a bit better than 50%. The idea that a single orc is likely to drop that fighter isn't very realistic.
First, the Unearthed Arcanas for both editions should be ignored, since they comprised optional rules only. If we include those, we also have to include house rules and that's not productive. Second, It's about difficulty, not whether one fighter would win and the other lose. Yes, both probably win. Yes, the 3e fighter has a much easier time of it. The 1e fighter is going to miss more and actually has to roll for damage. The 3e fighter hits much more often and auto smashes the orc.
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top