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.


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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.

If we're going 3rd level, we're not fighting a single orc anymore, either. We've moved on to ogres or some other creature befitting 3rd level PCs.

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.
Hey, why stop there. Let's make them 10th level and facing a kobold!

PS by 3rd level you've usually faced and beaten someone in plate, so you are wearing plate. The wealth by level was a guideline only for creation of PCs from scratch, and usually left that PC behind anyone who actually played to that level. Those guidelines, like many 3e rules(CR I'm looking at you!), were borked.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.

You're making it clear you don't understand Hussar's point. They changed the greataxe to the falchion in the default stat block deliberately to reduce the x3 crit modifier. The reason this is significant is because of the way they wrote adventures. For creatures that appeared in the Monster Manual, they just included a reference to the stat block which assumed the orcs were wielding the falchions, not the greataxes. They did it to dial back on the damage spike threat of the orcs in their adventures because x3 is a bit harsh for 1st or even 2nd level PCs.

Pointing out other options in the orc write up is ultimately pointless for making your argument. Of course you can equip the orcs any way you like, that's obvious, but those aren't the orcs appearing in the adventures by default.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You're making it clear you don't understand Hussar's point. They changed the greataxe to the falchion in the default stat block deliberately to reduce the x3 crit modifier. The reason this is significant is because of the way they wrote adventures. For creatures that appeared in the Monster Manual, they just included a reference to the stat block which assumed the orcs were wielding the falchions, not the greataxes. They did it to dial back on the damage spike threat of the orcs in their adventures because x3 is a bit harsh for 1st or even 2nd level PCs.

I see, so comprehension is the issue you two are having. The 3.5 combat section for orcs includes greataxes. That makes it crystal clear that the rule is that they use falchions AND greataxes. They changed nothing. What is in the stat block is NOT a rule.
 


I'm wondering if this thesis is the "casuals versus hardcores" in MMORPGs situation. One side expects newly designed content to be a litmus test that must be struggled and strived through in order to derive any obstacle-conquering-satisfaction, which in-turn will have the lovely byproduct of delineating class or stratifying the culture. The other side isn't interested in cultural stratification so they aren't interested in principles of design that push toward it.

I'm also wondering if this were about physical sport, if the implication would map to reward-based games being akin casual forays onto the basketball court with several disparately equipped and minimally (at best) invested participants. This would, in turn, produce a game where having a laugh, a bit of a sweat, and only very incidental/peripheral (at best) moments of something resembling "competition" would be the point.

Comparatively, you've got your Sunday game with a bunch of "weekend warriors" who want to test themselves in the crucible of tribal conflict in order to struggle, strive, and (hopefully) derive satisfaction in conquering difficult obstacles and (again) stratify your little micro-culture. At worst, even when conquered you've still tested yourself.


Is that the underlying psychology?
 

Arilyn

Hero
Look, at the end of the day, the argument over the "sweet spot" of lethality in gaming is as old as gaming. This exact argument has been hashed and rehashed in the pages of Dragon and whatnot since the 1970's. This is not anything new.

The thing is, the sweet spot is going to vary greatly depending on the play styles and preferences of a given table. If you want to do really old school style gaming, where you have the Town at X and the Dungeon at Y and your weekly play consists of forays into that dungeon, then, yup, you want high lethality. It's part and parcel to what makes that type of game fun.

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.

Never minding that more plotzy games have been part of the hobby since very early. I loved playing the old James Bond 007 RPG. Tons of fun. But, it makes zero sense to play that as an old style meat grinder. Completely doesn't fit with the tone or genre and makes the game very unfun. Thus, in the 007 game, you have Action Points (Bond Points? It's been a long time, I forget the exact term) where you, as the player, have a great deal of narrative control over the game. And this came out in about 1983, so, I'm thinking it counts as pretty "old school".

Rolling back to fantasy, there's also the issue of fantasy genre expectations. Fantasy fiction really doesn't fit (at least of the time) with the idea of a revolving door of dead characters. It's not until pretty recently with George R.R. Martin and others where you see fantasy fiction with strings of dead characters. Going back to Tolkien (I hate Godwinning this thread), of the original Fellowship, there's only one death. That's it. Rolling even further back to the pulps, your main characters almost never die. Sure, various red-shirt side characters pop up and get ganked, but, the main guys? Nope, they suffer and then keep right on rolling. ((Of course, this makes a lot more sense when you realize that those serial pulp authors wanted to keep making money, so, killing their main bread winner was just NOT going to happen)).

But, when you look at D&D's wargaming roots, frequent death makes perfect sense. No one cares when their three meeple on the Ukraine in Risk get munched. You pick up the pieces, and put them right back on the board next round. Given that all the pieces are identical, who cares if you lose one? However, that wargaming root ran smack dab into the impulse for theatricalism that is part and parcel to the hobby as well. Lots of people play RPG's to create a story. Which means that revolving door PC's don't work very well.

I don't think I'm saying anything controversial here. Which is why I've had a real problem wrapping my head around the notion that this is something new. That there's been some sort of change in the way D&D has been played since virtually day one. Every single one of the issues we've talked about here can be found in the first twenty or thirty issues of The Dragon. This is not a new thing.

Exactly. Some of the very first players of original D&D were making more story oriented campaigns, and squabbling with the players who preferred it to be more gamey with dead characters littering the landscape. You have hit the nail right on the head. Nothing has changed.
 

S'mon

Legend
I'm wondering if this thesis is the "casuals versus hardcores" in MMORPGs situation. One side expects newly designed content to be a litmus test that must be struggled and strived through in order to derive any obstacle-conquering-satisfaction, which in-turn will have the lovely byproduct of delineating class or stratifying the culture. The other side isn't interested in cultural stratification so they aren't interested in principles of design that push toward it.

I'm also wondering if this were about physical sport, if the implication would map to reward-based games being akin casual forays onto the basketball court with several disparately equipped and minimally (at best) invested participants. This would, in turn, produce a game where having a laugh, a bit of a sweat, and only very incidental/peripheral (at best) moments of something resembling "competition" would be the point.

Comparatively, you've got your Sunday game with a bunch of "weekend warriors" who want to test themselves in the crucible of tribal conflict in order to struggle, strive, and (hopefully) derive satisfaction in conquering difficult obstacles and (again) stratify your little micro-culture. At worst, even when conquered you've still tested yourself.


Is that the underlying psychology?

I don't think so exactly, because a status-oriented player doesn't really get to lord it over other players at the game table, unlike in an MMORPG or basketball court. I can have powergamers and casuals at my D&D table, but it's the one who brings the home made cookies who has established her superior status. :D

I think powergamers do it much more for personal satisfaction.

Conversely people who engage in Internet message board demonstrations of min-max charbuild abilities I think are seeking a kind of status, akin to the MMORPG powergamer.
 

pemerton

Legend
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]

I don't know the MMO scene and so won't venture there.

I don't know sports very well either, but I don't think that comparison quite fits this case: a group of casual basketballers knows that what they are doing only gets its logic from some more "serious" version of the same activity (ie competitive basketball). Music is similar: my guitar playing is pretty ordinary, and I'm never going to be any sort of serious performer, but I think about the meaning and quality of what I'm doing when I play my guitar using the same framework that I use to think seriously about real musicians.

Whereas the "participationist"/"tourism" RPGing is intended by those who do it, I think, to have a meaning and value and so on that is different from classic dungeon-crawling.
 

Hussar

Legend
/snip

Whereas the "participationist"/"tourism" RPGing is intended by those who do it, I think, to have a meaning and value and so on that is different from classic dungeon-crawling.

Sorry, but, do you mean "by those who use it" not do it?

But, if I'm understanding things correctly, isn't this just another way of poo pooing other people's playstyle? "You're not a real gamer, you are just a 'participationist.'" It never stops baffling me why gamers seem to have this need to draw lines around their version of the hobby and declare anything outside of that line as "something else". It produces absolutely nothing positive. You like playing a certain way? FAN-FUGGIN-TASTIC! Be proud of the way you game. Evangelize it. Convince me that I'll have a better time doing it your way that I am right now.

But, get up on a soapbox and declare that we've strayed from the one true path? Go soak your head.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]

I don't know the MMO scene and so won't venture there.

I don't know sports very well either, but I don't think that comparison quite fits this case: a group of casual basketballers knows that what they are doing only gets its logic from some more "serious" version of the same activity (ie competitive basketball). Music is similar: my guitar playing is pretty ordinary, and I'm never going to be any sort of serious performer, but I think about the meaning and quality of what I'm doing when I play my guitar using the same framework that I use to think seriously about real musicians.

Whereas the "participationist"/"tourism" RPGing is intended by those who do it, I think, to have a meaning and value and so on that is different from classic dungeon-crawling.

Whereas nothing. I think this is another case of overthinking and postulating some kind of difference existing between gamers as if we're some kind of special subculture without seeing that the same thing exists within every hobby. Every hobby has hardcores that look down on wannabes, oddballs that scoff at conformists. Every hobby has people in various wings of the hobby putting different meaning and value to the things they're doing compared to someone else in another wing. You don't think blues musicians impart different meanings and values to their craft from punks, or concert pianists from rappers? You don't think Woody Guthrie considered music to have different meaning and value from Metallica? I'd bet you can find any number of musicians who approach their craft with meanings and values every bit as different from each other as "participationist" RPGers from classic dungeon crawling.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top