• 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

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Heh, I'm in the same boat as [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION] - we used xp for gold all the way through 1e, but, I never met a group that did so in 2e. The baseline rules were no xp for gold. To be honest, I didn't even realize it was an option in 2e. Buried somewhere in the DMG I assume?

I do remember classes had individual xp bonuses and that rogues who stole gold could earn xp that way, but, AFAIK, that was it.

Since it was right in the middle of the XP section of the DMG, I'd hardly call that "buried". In fact, it's right between the info on calculating the XP award for defeating monsters and class-based XP awards for their specific deeds.

A lot of people didn't award gold for XP in 2e the same reason people disregarded that rule in 1e, it didn't make sense to them to reward treasure a second time - for the cash value and the XP value. And the fact that it was demoted to optional in 2e probably even took out the relatively sticklers who did award XP for gold in 1e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

[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.

If you want to take this analogy and run with it, then it's less the difference between professional basketball and a casual game for fun, and more the difference between either of those two and the sort of participation-trophy extreme where nobody is allowed to fail because they might feel bad (whether or not that's a real thing, it's an example for illustration).

It's not that the competition is slack because neither team is really invested too much, and more that one side is deliberately throwing the game by giving the other side so many get-out-of-jail-free cards that the conclusion is foregone.

Edit: I'm not saying that it's actually gone that far, but the analogy is better. It's a matter of perspective. How many extra lives do they need to give you, before winning becomes inevitable? Everyone is going to see that line in a different place. I probably could have beaten Super Mario Bros. when I was 8, if I'd had a hundred lives; but probably not if I'd only had ten lives.

This is going to be a quick (possibly incoherent) ramble, so fair warning.

There are a lot of familiar refrains in the lead article, but here are two I honed in on (in trying to tease out precisely what the premise was and what the lamentation resembled):

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.

<snip>

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.

While I don't agree that "the world (of games) is headed" here, I certainly understand the lament. When once the market was significantly dominated by this perspective, there is now a deep diversity in the CRPG market, the MMORPG market, the TTRPG market, the boardgaming market, and the physical activity market. Various zeitgeists pop up now and again and gather some short-term steam (from revolutionary to retro), but the market-space doesn't seem to be contracting in such a way to preclude "challenge/consequence-based" games (if anything, I would say that the boardgame market and several CRPGs have become more difficult, more punitive). Its just that overall expansion and progress (of ideas, of clarity, of delivery upon formula, of nuance, of paradigm) necessitates that each individual market niche has more competition for attention (and maybe prospective casual buyers).

Whether the marketplace can handle that, I'll leave for someone else to decide (I know there is an opinion that the marketplace isn't robust enough to handle dilution/competition...maybe that is where Kickstarter saves the day). I was mainly just focusing on the psychology of what might animate someone to lament lack of conflict/consequence in their gaming (which seemed to harken to the two competing psychologies that underwrite the "casuals vs hardcores" refrain).

One last (unrelated) thing.

I definitely don't agree that the modern (non OSR) TTRPG market lacks conflict and consequence. That tells me that the author doesn't have the exposure necessary to take up a position.

1) The PBtA games mostly have default of hard-mode.
1a) Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark are "hard games". They very, very rarely end well for PCs and the game is not a "happy one".
1b) Dungeon World is trivially drifted from Big Damn Heroes to murderhobos fumbling in the dark. It can be done with the default game or by using a "Darkest Dungeon" hack out there which is very solid and well-integrated into the PBtA engine.

2) Torchbearer is most definitely ultra-gritty hard-mode. It is WAY more difficult than Moldvay Basic and considerably more than the Expert/Companion set that follows as the game advances.

3) 4e and Strike! are both so well-engineered that if a group sits down and wants to drift either to brutally difficult setting, they can do so just by changing default expectations and turning a few knobs.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It was not until 3e that I encountered a group who did not use xp for gp but that just meant that I got the xp for defeating them rather then for their stuff.

My experience is the same as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. We experimented a couple times with XP for gold, but it made the game too easy and we dropped it. I never encountered any others who played that way. They all knew the rules said that you got it for gold, but no one I encountered followed that rule.
 

Hussar

Legend
It's always funny to me when people's personal experience equates to "a lot of people" based on nothing more than a tiny, tiny slice of a sample size, pretty much universally "people I know". I have no idea how many people used XP for gold in 1e. I know that I did and so did everyone I played with. But, beyond that? I can't really make any extrapolations.

And it's also funny how "We must discuss the game as written" becomes "We must discuss the game the way I played" whenever people happen not to play the way the game is written. :D
 


Shasarak

Banned
Banned
And it's also funny how "We must discuss the game as written" becomes "We must discuss the game the way I played" whenever people happen not to play the way the game is written. :D

If you have read the way the game is written then it becomes obvious that you have to discuss the game the way I (You) played.
 

Hussar

Legend
If you have read the way the game is written then it becomes obvious that you have to discuss the game the way I (You) played.

Yuppers. You used an optional rule that wasn't assumed as part of the core game. No worries. It's not like you were playing wrong.

Where you go wrong is the idea that everyone played the way you did and trying to extrapolate your personal experience into some sort of universal. I have no idea how common it was to play with XP for gold in 2e. To me, one of the major changes from 1e to 2e was the rejection of xp for gold, which massively slowed down advancement in 2e.

To me, the change of the importance of gold really highlights how each edition is a different game. For example:

1e - Gold is the primary source of XP in the system. Looking at the modules, you generally got FAR more xp for gold than you could for killing everything. To the point where probably about 75% (give or take) of the xp of a character was gold. Then, that gold was taken away, largely, by the training rules. The point of play was to amass cash - killing stuff was largely incidental. Plus there was the presumption of things like hirelings and henchmen which was a major source of the power of a party, all of which cost gold.

2e - Gold is largely useless. You aren't supposed to buy magic items in the game and, beyond buying your Full Plate armor, there really wasn't much you could do with gold. It just kind of sat there. To the point where, in the games I ran or played in at the time, gold wasn't particularly even awarded as treasure. Beyond a certain point, gold just wasn't all that needed.

3e - Gold again is a HUGE deal. So much so that we get the wealth by level charts which are meant as a balancing tool in the game. You can buy or make magic items which has an enormous impact on how the game is played and run. Things like healing wands and the Magic Christmas Tree are all outgrowths of tying character power to the wealth of the character. Amassing gold is a very large motivator for PC's in 3e.

4e - Gold is scaled back. It's assumed that you will have certain goodies by certain levels, so, the "reward" isn't really much of a reward at all. You're level X, so, you have equipment Y. So much so that you can completely remove plussed items and gold and go with Inherent Bonuses and the game works perfectly fine. It really doesn't matter how much gold you accrue.

5e - Gold, like in 2e, has pretty much no purpose. You're not supposed to buy magic items - at least the system doesn't assume that you can, and, outside of down time activities, gold doesn't really do anything. For example, we played through most of Curse of Strahd recently, and by 8th level, the group total cash might be a couple of thousand gold. It simply doesn't matter.

You can run this same sort of charted examples for just about anything between editions and it's not too hard to see that each edition has some pretty deep changes. Fighters go from 1 attack per round with minimal bonuses, to 3/2 (+1 to hit/+2 to damage) in 2e, to BAB and iterative attacks, back to 1 attack per round but now with additional riders, then to 1 attack per round increasing at certain levels. Just something as basic as how does a basic plain jane fighter swing his sword has changed between editions.
 

Hussar

Legend
Y'know, for S&G's, I dug out my 2e DMG to find the rule for awarding XP for gold. I was right, it is bloody buried in the text. I had to read it three times just to find it and this is the sum total of what we get:

As an option, the DM can award XP for the cash value of non-magical treasures. One XP can be given per gold piece found. However, overuse of this option can increase the tendency to give out too much treasure in the campaign.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea that xp should be given for gold. And, certainly the implication here is that you shouldn't be always using this.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
Interesting conjecture, including the "smokescreen" part of it. I'm surprised you've only got one response!

I think you're right about interest in my preferred approach being modest, though I'm always a bit puzzled by that because a lot of RPGers claim to really be into "story", and I think it's the most reliable way of generating "story" without railroading.

I tried to quote [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] here as well, but somehow it appears to not be working. I actually tend to agree a bit with him about playing D&D closer to its classic style. I just don't think its core engine is well suited to much else. (I'm not even sure how well-suited it is to that purpose, but...). I should also note that I'll use "D&D" in this post to refer to all of its close kin and variants, including Pathfinder and the OSR, generally.

I think there are several factors going on when it comes to the low adoption rates of story games by traditional rpgers, despite continued insistence on "story" being important to them. The most important/prominent, IME/O, is that D&D is already here, most potential players are familiar with it, and it works in a way that is relatively concrete and easy to grasp. Even though it functions poorly for almost every use it is put to....it still limps along and groups just wince and bear with it over the rough spots. The simple familiarity that so very many players have with D&D simply overwhelms all its shortcomings. It is the dominant game in this marketspace, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

In contrast to the OP, I actually believe that maintenance of this dominance has been the driving force in D&D's design decisions. Streamlining mechanics, simplifying modifiers and subsystems, all of it just cutting away the rough spots that make it difficult to adopt and stay with. Of course, there have been missteps here and there, but for the most part, that has been the trend AFAICT. I firmly believe that even 4e, IMO the biggest misstep, was simply a matter of poorly chosen presentation that too blatantly jerked away from traditional phrasings. Sales weren't the problem, as much as it is often cited in these arguments. The big problem with 4e was that it split the community. The edition war actually threatened to splinter that D&D Dominance. In the long run, that would spell doom for D&D in a way that slow sales never threaten to do.

If I put out a sign at me FLGS advertising a startup group for any edition of D&D, I could be playing it next week. Establishing a group based on a different system is nearly impossible by comparison. I have tried many times, with many different systems. The store even sold out of Fate Accelerated, ordered Fate Core, sold out of that and stocks claims to regularly sell sets of Fate Dice...but whoever bought those things isn't responding to my ads. (Why? I dunno. Are they all just system-collectors like me?)

Now, I suppose that may be different in different markets or at different stores. Presumably larger markets could support more fringe groups. However, I've noticed that there is a big difference between the online communities for the "fringe" games and the online communities for D&D. Namely, D&D communities tend to presume that most play is occurring in-person, while the tendency for the others is to presume either convention one-shot or online play. This seems to be reflected in the "looking for group" areas as well. I suspect that most Gumshoe, Fate, The Quiet Year, Apocalypse World, etc. players just have no other option, if they actually want to play the game. By contrast, I suspect most OSR play happens at table-top amongst players or groups that have been gaming for some time. (And note the distress caused by people claiming or questioning whether Dungeon World is and Old-School game.)

I do think there are other factors. For example, I think many folks are either unwilling or unable to discern or admit what their own preferences are. I've observed people tell me one thing and then act at-table in manners totally contrary to their claim. So, some of those people telling Pemerton that they are in it for the story are lying/wrong about themselves. Quite likely, most folks don't examine their play or enjoyment enough to know. Of course, that task is made harder by a game that is often fudged at table, or played with a raft of houserules. Most story-centric games put players in a position of much greater authorship than they have in D&D, and that can leave a game running flat. Too much authorial power takes away the visceral experience of tension that is part of the entertainment process.

Additionally, I think that the state of design for story-centric or narrative-centric games is not nearly so advanced as we might hope. I think its getting better, and lately folks have made solid strides, but I don't think its nearly as refined as commonly available war, skirmish, or board games are. For instance, early editions of D&D show much more of their its wargame roots, and they show through even today. Later rpgs don't show nearly so much wargame-derived content. Similarly, most story-centric games today cling fairly close to their D&D/rpg ancestors (one character per player except for one "GM" player, a heavy focus on action/adventure/combat, etc.) Many story games rely (perhaps overmuch on) extremely abstract mechanics, shifting resolution to the players at table. That puts players onto hazier ground an into less-sure positions than games with more concrete mechanics, and not all players are comfortable with that. I think what people are looking for in a story game is one that has a story emerging "naturally" as an artifact of play, but one that can still surprise them as play progresses.

I could go on, but this is a long post already and its late here. As always, just my $.02.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Y'know, for S&G's, I dug out my 2e DMG to find the rule for awarding XP for gold. I was right, it is bloody buried in the text. I had to read it three times just to find it and this is the sum total of what we get:



Hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea that xp should be given for gold. And, certainly the implication here is that you shouldn't be always using this.

How many times do they need to say it?

Besides, if you actually read the experience entry you will find it lets the DM give as much experience as they want to.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top