• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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
The consequences may or may not catch up to you; that is the essence of greater randomness. And it's simply not true; in the Carrion Crown (PF) game I'm playing in, several characters died before hitting second, and the GM said we were doing better than a previous group he ran, where everyone had lost at least one character at that point. In the Zeitgeist (PF) game I'm running, we've lost several characters, and if I hadn't nerfed a couple things, we'd have lost several more. The GM has way more power over deadliness and consequences than the system.

Yes, at super low levels in 3e/PF you can still die and not have the resources to be brought back. It very rarely happened to me, but I've seen it happen. That's still nothing compared to what it was like in 1e and 2e. Did you roll for hit points at 1st level and have some of you start with 1 or 2 hit points. Did you not get bonuses from your stats until 15+, or did you started getting pluses at 12?

Does difficulty dictate having earned something? Does the person who copies out the Encyclopedia for £4 a week earn his money less than someone who correctly predicts a string of horse races for big winnings?
Yes. If you work hard for something, you did more to earn it than if you don't work hard. If it's more or less just handed to you, you didn't earn it at all. You did more to earn things the earlier you go in editions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

prosfilaes

Adventurer
Yes, at super low levels in 3e/PF you can still die and not have the resources to be brought back. It very rarely happened to me, but I've seen it happen. That's still nothing compared to what it was like in 1e and 2e. Did you roll for hit points at 1st level and have some of you start with 1 or 2 hit points. Did you not get bonuses from your stats until 15+, or did you started getting pluses at 12?

Did you have to fight a 15th level character at first level, like the the Zeitgeist AP for Pathfinder has you do?

Frankly, that doesn't strike me as real difficulty. If you're playing a fighter in D&D, you're going to be standing in front of the mage; and if you have one hitpoint (through no fault of your own), and get hit (because it's not like you can get your AC low enough that's not going to happen), then you died of bad luck. It wasn't a challenge; you just simply rolled poorly.

Yes. If you work hard for something, you did more to earn it than if you don't work hard. If it's more or less just handed to you, you didn't earn it at all. You did more to earn things the earlier you go in editions.

Reread the question: "Does difficulty dictate having earned something? Does the person who copies out the Encyclopedia for £4 a week earn his money less than someone who correctly predicts a string of horse races for big winnings?" The guy who copies out the Encyclopedia did something anyone with a functioning hand, eye, and the ability to read and write could do. That doesn't mean that copying out the encyclopedia was not hard tedious work or that that £4 a week was just handed to him. The guy who who walked up to the sports book and correctly guessed the next ten races did something difficult, but that doesn't mean he worked hard for it; he could have just randomly guessed.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Did you have to fight a 15th level character at first level, like the the Zeitgeist AP for Pathfinder has you do?

No.

Frankly, that doesn't strike me as real difficulty. If you're playing a fighter in D&D, you're going to be standing in front of the mage; and if you have one hitpoint (through no fault of your own), and get hit (because it's not like you can get your AC low enough that's not going to happen), then you died of bad luck. It wasn't a challenge; you just simply rolled poorly.

That's not real difficulty. That's incredibly bad adventure writing and no different than the DM saying, "A meteor falls out of the sky and kills you all.". It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am talking about. Real difficult assumes that the encounters are at least somewhere within the guidelines for your level.

Reread the question: "Does difficulty dictate having earned something? Does the person who copies out the Encyclopedia for £4 a week earn his money less than someone who correctly predicts a string of horse races for big winnings?" The guy who copies out the Encyclopedia did something anyone with a functioning hand, eye, and the ability to read and write could do. That doesn't mean that copying out the encyclopedia was not hard tedious work or that that £4 a week was just handed to him. The guy who who walked up to the sports book and correctly guessed the next ten races did something difficult, but that doesn't mean he worked hard for it; he could have just randomly guessed.
That again has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Game difficulty is not based on randomness. There is a random factor, but it's not like going and just picking numbers and praying that you will win.
 

Hussar

Legend
Who's talking about roleplaying. I'm talking about gameplay. If you were reckless, you died and the consequences caught up to you........unlike in 3e-5e. The difficulty I'm mentioning is about the game, not whether you play yourself as a cool prince, or a poor holy man.



Award and reward are synonyms. There hasn't been a change other than to make the game easier over time.

Actually, no they aren't quite. Award is for doing something and is recognition for excellence. Thus, it's an Academy Award, not Academy Reward. Rewards are given on a regular basis, where you are, essentially, paid for doing your job. That is the heart of the point that's being made in this thread.


Er, the past players earned them by overcoming a more difficult game than you find now days. Difficulty is a part of this discussion whether you want to argue about it or not. ;)

False Equivalence. Increased random chance is not what this is about. At least not directly. This isn't about a direct comparison of the raise mechanics of 1e and 2e vs. 3e-5e. It's about those differences creating a more difficult play environment by forcing early players to approach game play differently or roll up a bunch of characters.

I had easily 10x more PCs die in 1e and 2e than 3e+ That's because the difficulty dropped tremendously.

Meh, the plural of anecdote is not data. I have killed FAR more PC's in 3e than any other edition I've run.

The "difficulty" in earlier editions was mostly due to arbitrary random chance. Poison kills you - meaning that if you survived or died, had virtually nothing to do with what you did or what choices you made, but, simply random chance. Which is not awarding behavior. It's gambling. Not that gambling isn't fun. There's a billion dollar gambling industry that shows just how fun it is to gamble.

But, you don't actually earn any awards when you gamble. Dying to random chance, sure, increases difficulty, but, again, we're comparing the idea that you "earned" your awards in early games. Which, I've already shown, isn't true.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Actually, no they aren't quite. Award is for doing something and is recognition for excellence. Thus, it's an Academy Award, not Academy Reward. Rewards are given on a regular basis, where you are, essentially, paid for doing your job. That is the heart of the point that's being made in this thread.

Yes quite. An award is nothing more than a type of reward. In this case it's a reward for excellence in acting and film making. And I don't know about you, but once a year for 90 years is a pretty darn regular basis to me.
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
That's not real difficulty. That's incredibly bad adventure writing and no different than the DM saying, "A meteor falls out of the sky and kills you all.". It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am talking about. Real difficult assumes that the encounters are at least somewhere within the guidelines for your level.

I don't see why. Why is hoping a goblin won't randomly roll to do two points of damage to you and kill you "real difficulty" and being faced with an overwhelming opponent that you can only defeat by through applying the right tools to him (and he was defeatable) not "real difficulty"? Whether it was good or not is independent of whether it was a difficult challenge of the player's skill.

That again has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Game difficulty is not based on randomness. There is a random factor, but it's not like going and just picking numbers and praying that you will win.

The point remains; do you earn something through hard work, or through skill or luck? "If you work hard for something, you did more to earn it than if you don't work hard." If that's the issue at hand, how easy you can die is not nearly so relevant as how many goblins you have to kill to level up. Hard work is not luck, it's not skill, it's elbow grease. The guy who keeps a complete track of everything that goes on in the game and sends that out to the players and has every spell printed out and ready may easily be the hardest worker in the group, even if his caster keeps ending up standing right in front of the enemy and in the midst of every deadly trap.

You talk about rolling HP at first level, but that's anti-skill. If you want to reward the skilled players and punish the less skilled reliably, then they should all start off the same, or at least in some way fixed by player choices.
 

Hussar

Legend
Yes quite. An award is nothing more than a type of reward. In this case it's a reward for excellence in acting and film making. And I don't know about you, but once a year for 90 years is a pretty darn regular basis to me.

Sigh. Look, I'm not going to play dueling definitions with you. No, they are not the same thing. Look it up if you don't believe me. An award is for EXCELLENCE. A reward is for work done. Thus, the ENTIRE POINT of this whole thread. Go back and reread the OP if it's still unclear, this is the language that is used in the OP. The idea that you earned your awards in the past, but, now, you simply get rewards for participation.

It's going to make it really hard to have a discussion with you if you won't accept the definitions that were set in the first post of this thread. If you don't like those definitions, fair enough, take that up with someone else. But, those are the terms that were set at the outset of all this. I'm simply arguing using the terms as were set by the OP. Which means you and I cannot actually have a conversation since you are not using the same language that I am.

So, either accept the terms as set by the OP, or stop replying to me and start taking him to task for his apparent lack of understanding of English.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yeah. That's really cool and a sign of a really good DM. I was just talking RAW in my posts. Going outside of RAW to create awesome stories, though, is part and parcel of the game in my opinion.
My character's lover was another PC, not an NPC. All the DM had to do was hit the curveballs thrown at him, which he did very well. :)

And remember, the RAW in 1e are specifically called out as guidelines by their author...

Lanefan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]

Er...guys? There's a forest out there...right behind those trees you're stuck looking at...

:)
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
I'm going to posit: dice to not add challenge. They simply add randomness. Luck and randomness are not elements of challenge. Two identical characters facing identical challenges have equal chance of rolling any given number on a d20. That's not challenge. Difficulty may be added via DCs, but the dice still present the same issue, they have not changed, regardless of your level, your HP, your modifiers or anything else. You stand the same chance of rolling 1-20 at 1st level as you do at 20th level. A high-stat character may be more likely to overcome a challenge of high difficulty relevant to that stat, but the dice play no part in it.

Dice are simply a vector. Much in the same way that a pencil does not write an essay, a die does not present a challenge.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top