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

Mishihari Lord

First Post
Before commenting on the articles, I want to comment on the comments. A lot of them could be summarized as "please stop publishing articles that I don't agree with." Seriously? How do you ever expect to learn something new if you only talk to people that think the same things as you do?

The article clearly highlights an element of playstyle: do I always want my character to get the candy, or do I want receiving candy to depend on my choices? The smart thing to do with this content is to use it to consider your personal playstyle: where do I fall on this continuum, and how can I adjust how I'm playing to better fit my preference? The foolish thing to do with the content is to use it to cast aspersions at those with different playstyles.

Articles like this can also be useful as a check on one's personal consistency. People get mad when it's pointed out that their actions aren't consistent with their espoused beliefs of positions. For example if one thinks intellectually that always getting the candy is lame, but it turns out that that's how he prefers to play. Or vice versa. Better understanding your own play preferences can be a lot of help in making your games better.

So my thoughts on the actual article. I pretty much agree with the idea that there's been a general shift in society to make what people receive less dependent on their own actions. Folks' thoughts on whether or not this is a good thing are pretty dependent on their political leanings, so I won't pursue this element further. Games have followed along with this shift. As a result, I tend to enjoy the older games more. 2E is still my favorite D&D. One of the big things I don't care for in later games is 100% recovery each day. I have more fun when the challenges I face today depend on what happened yesterday, frex, with regard to spells and health expended. With 100% recovery some strategy and resource allocation elements of the game that I enjoy go away.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

My point in the OP is about what people expect to do and achieve when playing the game, not about what kind of thing they're looking to get from the game. Two people can expect the same "reward" (better, award), in the latter sense, yet want the game to play very differently.

If that was your intent, and it may well have been, but it was muddied by the judgmental tone of the article. If you want to discus that, but you use words and phrases like "such as the ridiculous Revivify spell, usable by a mere fifth level cleric" as a big example. Reading that sets the tone of the rest of the article as "the way I play is better and this other way is worse" - therein lies the judgement that people are jumping to and the ad hominem - "he's just a whiny old geezer". It's right there in the word choice, tone and prose of the article.

I would love to see an article with the same intent, but discussing the changes in expectations, approach and such, but done from a more neutral standpoint on what is good and what is bad.



For the record - Geezer here, just turned 50, started playing in '77.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Before commenting on the articles, I want to comment on the comments. A lot of them could be summarized as "please stop publishing articles that I don't agree with."

Totally agree. I think lewpuls has a valid and reasonable perspective and has been mugged for it. It is a sign of the times that people want news they can agree with. They often react poorly to opinions that differ from their own. I think this site can afford different opinions without the personal attacks. Debate is fine but I think some of the comments above go beyond that.

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.

Why don't we all try to find common ground before trashing essayists. After all, we're talking about games here people, games.
 

AriochQ

Adventurer
I think the issue at hand is that this is more 'editorial' than it is 'article'. It probably is more properly placed as a forum thread, rather than as a front page item.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
In other words, when you try to interpret/divine what "I want" (usually incorrectly), when you blame me or "old geezers" for what I've described, you've *LOST ALL CREDIBILITY.*

It's fun to watch my previous posts get substantiated.

It is not I the commentor who needs to establish credibility. That is on you. You must demonstrate that your point is well supported, or that your opinion is rational, even if disagreeable. What I read was neither well-supported (you can argue you didn't have enough room to provide specific examples all you like, one or two would not have taken many words), nor is it well rationalized, relying heavily on "back in my day"-isms for games somehow having more consequence and less reward.

So if you find your opinion being readily disregarded, you really should reflect inwardly on that, instead of one again accusing your detractors of lacking credibility.
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
It's a common reaction of younger people to claim that any suggestion that changes in life have occurred in ways that "don't sound good" is simply an old person reacting to/hating on the young. ... What matters is whether something is true, not who's identifying or describing it.

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.

I despise legacy games, which stink to me of planned obsolescence.

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.

Once again, I am editorially constrained to 500 words, which doesn't leave room for many examples. ... Trying to figure out what an author wants based on a 500 word piece is a fool's errand.

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.

I have no idea how what I've said can come to be interpreted as "a certain style of RPG as 'games of consequence' when what the consequences are of is the fact that you rolled poorly."

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.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
This whole thing some old-timers have about how back in their day PCs actually had to work for a living and walk in 9 ft deep snow to the dragon's lair and it was uphill both ways and ....

That just doesn't match my experiences with Old-school at all. Mine seem much more in line with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s, even when the DM was using all or most of the rules that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned. I don't think I've ever met an old-school dwarf who made it more than a few levels without somehow running into the Franklin Mint Dwarven Heritage Artifact Collection. (For that matter, I was recently playing a 1e OSR revival game and we found them as treasure in a published adventure at about level 4, IIRC.) My High School group played mostly published adventures and my first college group played mostly homebrew in the FR. I don't know how you miss all the treasure. Just put your finger on the wall and never let go until you've mapped and murdered the whole place. The whole procedure is often referred to as "cleaning out the dungeon" for cryin' out loud. I've witnessed 20 minute arguments about whether or not the party should make the effort to take the copper pieces. "Sure, individually they're worthless, but we have 35,000 of them."

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. Because, as I said about magic in the other thread:

It is, however, less-codified and generally opaque to the players. Whether that's good or not is in the eye of the beholder. But it does have the (unintended?) side effect of making magic item "drops" one of the key ways a DM can influence the party, plot, or whatever while simultaneously making him seem like a nice guy. Add a dash of fairness and suddenly every old school party I've ever been a part of glows from orbit when somebody casts Detect Magic.

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....

As always YMMV, and its just my $.02
 

It's a common reaction of younger people to claim ...

... Hitler liked it so it must be bad ...

... you've *LOST ALL CREDIBILITY.*

... I despise political correctness and rampant egalitarianism ...

... reward-based games are like Monty Haul adventures ...

... I despise legacy games, which stink to me of planned obsolescence ...

... Hussar seems to be particularly out of touch with logic ...

... By any reasonable criteria I've ever seen, [my opinion] carries far more weight than any random commenter's does

OK. So I really need to know -- given the volume of inflammatory comments you make above, did you choose the last line of your comment with *deliberate* irony, or was it accidental?

Heaven help me if I ever deliberately try to stir up comments.
 

Does anyone else who plays video games have the same opinion as the OP? I'm curious as my experience of modern video games seems very different from the OPs:

Video players of adventure/action/RP games have come to expect a "loot drop" from every monster, no matter how innocuous.

Good Lord, wouldn't that be nice. You have no idea how long it took me to get the parts I needed for all my bags in HZD. I swear I'd have taken a mission to kill a herd of Thunderlizards if one was guaranteed to drop a friggin fish scale. In virtually every adventure/RP game I play, there are huge sets of posts on how to find worthwhile drops. Yes, everything drops trash, but that's as exciting as saying "every orc in OD&D drops standard rag clothing". In fact, I'd say the exact opposite to the OP's contention is true. Loot Drops are now used as a means to drag out games and make them longer and harder. Old-school video games had fixed drops -- so much easier! No more donning stupid hard-to-find armor and +2 golden rings to increase the farm rate by 0.000001%

Quite apart from how you can use your save games to keep doing the same thing (such as open a chest) again and again until you get a result you really like.

Doesn't work in most games I play; the chest is randomized at creation time and so you can't do this. Save-scumming is totally old-school. Not a thing in modern games. Also, I play a few MMOs and Dark Souls style game (e.g. Nioh) where there is no save. Actually curious -- have there been any major releases in the last year where you can save-scum loot chests?

I've advocated an "autopilot" mode in video games for many years

Don't most games now have a variable level of difficulty you can set, and the easy mode is often explicitly called "story mode; for those interested only in experiencing the story" and you can do exactly as suggested -- turn it on for specific areas if you like? The only games I know which don't do this are either pure storytelling or hyper-difficult.

they're worried about polluting the pseudo-competition of comparing times taken to "beat a game."

As far as I recall, in games with difficulty switching, they almost invariably have achieves that take that into account. You don't get the achieve for "winning in hard mode" if you switch out of hard mode -- dirt simple, pretty much universal.

As an aside -- the dig about "pseudo-competition" of speed-running seems a bit odd? Its not something I do, but I can't see why it's not a seriously competitive thing. It requires game skill, puzzle solving and a ton of practice. Seems pretty genuine to me. Is it a generally loathed concept?
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
I despise legacy games, which stink to me of planned obsolescence.

It's still off-topic, but that's quite a leap to judgment. "Planned obsolescence" was a big discussion about the games when they first came out, but people still love them, and before despising them, you should look at why. The Legacy feature adds a cumulative effect, so you continue playing to see what's going to happen, and every single game (or subgame, really) has consequences on the next. Interestingly enough, Pandemic Legacy has few of the awards you're going on about; it's all about containing the damage and knowing at least it was only Montreal that collapsed, and NYC is still around.

Pandemic Legacy has between 12 and 24 plays in it; say 16 on average. Compare to a Strategy & Tactics game subscription, where you get a wargame a month; every month, are you going to get 16 plays of the new wargame in? Or even 8, since Pandemic Legacy is $70 and an S&T game issue is only $35? I've got a bunch of games still in shrink, and some with only one play in. If you get several dozen plays out of every game you own, then legacy games may not be for you. If you're like me and my friends, you may get more game play out of a legacy game than almost any other game you buy.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top