When You Aren't Playing To Level

[Fenes]

Any reward system that is goal/objective-based, and not time-based will focus the players' actions and activity towards those goals/objectives at least to some degree.

With a "X reward per session, no matter what you do" system, players are more likely to do what they have fun with, instead of what gives the best reward.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Interesting how this turned into a discussion about game mechanics influencing gameplay...

Sorry. I was just thinking about this the past days and I had to bring it up.

D20 systems (D&D and related) generally do tend to encourage people to go out and pick fights. Ridcully's mention of Torg in comparison is actually pretty interesting.

It would be great if Torg wasn't basically dead. We can't really play it anymore, since no one feels able to whip out his own homebrew adventures/campaign for Torg, and two members of the party have played all the published modules, often twice or more!

By the way, Ridcully - I love your username.

Me, too.

On the other, extreme end of the scale - I actually played a (future/Modern) game where we threw the dice out the window. We wound up with a called-shots system where players could call a certain number of shots per session. The shots had to be within what everybody agreed was your ability range, and it was ultimately up to DM discretion.

Interestingly, people became a lot less kill-happy and started focusing on how to best disable an enemy in order to accomplish their goal. I think it had to do with only having X number of outcomes you could declare in a given session, so if you attacked someone, you REALLY made it count, as combat was going to burn through a lot of your called shots.

It was probably also partly because people tend to get really irritable when you kill their ambassador.

That is an interesting concept, especially since you actually tried it out.
Did you read the thread on Dread ("Jenga is beating up my dice?")?

Any reward system that is goal/objective-based, and not time-based will focus the players' actions and activity towards those goals/objectives at least to some degree.

With a "X reward per session, no matter what you do" system, players are more likely to do what they have fun with, instead of what gives the best reward.

Bah, you're making it way too obvious! How are we supposed to discuss the topic if you explain the core concepts in such easy terms?!

Spoiler

I could have written QFT, but where is the fun in that?

 

[hanasays]

Sorry. I was just thinking about this the past days and I had to bring it up.


It would be great if Torg wasn't basically dead. We can't really play it anymore, since no one feels able to whip out his own homebrew adventures/campaign for Torg, and two members of the party have played all the published modules, often twice or more!

Nah, it wasn't a criticism. I think it's an interesting direction for the thread to take.

As for game mechanics as boiled down by Fenes, yeah, that's probably pretty much true. The weird thing is that the cap's on RP EXP, but doesn't apply to Combat EXP, yet it doesn't seem to be influencing the players' willingness to go out and pick fights.

It does say something about the effect of something like a "ticking clock" as a motivator, especially if beating the clock is actually the goal.

Any reason for the dearth of home-brew for Torg? Is it a lack of open-source material and copyright issues? Simply the age of the system? This has probably been discussed in other threads but I guess I'll ask anyway.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Any reason for the dearth of home-brew for Torg? Is it a lack of open-source material and copyright issues? Simply the age of the system? This has probably been discussed in other threads but I guess I'll ask anyway.

On the risk of going off-topic:

The system is out of print for some time now. I don't think you can put out anything official without WEG approval. (And WEG isn't looking good, though it might have been less worse. But they kept announcing a Torg 2.0, and it never happened.)

And then there is the problem of creativity - you really need to be creative to make a good Torg adventure. You must incorporate multiple of the Torg Realms (and respect their specialties, like the World Laws), you need some compelling villains, a story-line with enough twists and turns to use all the subplot options possible.
And then you also have to have a good feeling for drama - what scenes are so crucial that they deserve dramatic encounters?

My group doesn't create much homebrew in general, so that's an extra problem. And I don't feel experienced enough with Torg to run a session.

 

[RFisher]

Classic Traveller. Improving the numbers on your character sheet takes only time and money. (I didn’t even know it was an option for a long time.) All rewards are simply in-game. (Money, possessions, power, satisfaction, &c.)

Since cT was my first RPG experience (beyond a few Basic D&D sessions), I tend to have a hard time understanding people for whom mechanical improvements to their PC is a primary element of the hobby. I mean, I understand it and I enjoy it, but I have just as much fun if it’s completely absent. Consequently, I think I don’t tend to hand out as much XP as other GMs when running games that have XP.

 

[hanasays]

Classic Traveller. I tend to have a hard time understanding people for whom mechanical improvements to their PC is a primary element of the hobby.

A lot of it is a sense of one-upmanship, something that seems to have gotten stronger with later editions of D&D. I started with 2nd ed. Even the difference between that and 4th ed. of the same series, and how the focus of the game has changed, can be pretty amazing. Character optimization has become far more important and sometimes the games just feel like the players are trying to outdo each other more than actually defeat a villain. There's really a sense of competition between the players themselves, as opposed to earlier editions where the focus was more on cooperation (failure to cooperate generally meant you died). I'm not saying it's bad - I'm just saying it's different and how the focus of the mechanics seem to have shifted. I'm sure that for this observation, there are 50 that someone else can provide of how they haven't changed or how they have shifted away from that. That's merely my perspective. D&D may appeal to a sub-set of gamers for whom a sense of one-upmanship is something that they want or expect from a game.

One of the reasons the last campaign was run using AD&D was because we wanted a little more freedom, and a little less focus on character optimization. We were interested in being classic fantasy characters rather than superheros.

I'm not characterizing all D&D players with my previous statement, I'm just saying that this tends to hold true for many of the groups I have played in. Especially evil or politics-heavy campaigns where the PCs are often trying to gain an advantage or otherwise double-cross their own party members while still somehow stumbling toward a mutual goal. On the other hand, we also approached this with a good-natured humor - it was hilarious watching our own PCs repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot.

And it's not a bad thing, it's just a certain element of a game that may appeal to some people and put other people off.

It can also be fun trying to come up with story reasons to explain why your PC suddenly developed a bizarre new skill, or using your PC to do absurd and unrealistic things. I've played some over-the-top cartoony campaigns with a focus on character optimization that were hilarious because the characters were so ridiculous and overpowered that we were actually having a really hard time explaining how or why they could do the ridiculous things they were doing. It devolved into comedic hack-and-slash and it was very fun.

 

[RFisher]

A lot of it is a sense of one-upmanship, something that seems to have gotten stronger with later editions of D&D.

Don’t take this as disagreement with anything you wrote, but I’ll share more of my experiences.

When I first really noticed how important mechanical advancement was for a friend of mine was years ago when we were playing primarily GURPS and Rolemaster. It was truly not an upmanship thing with him, but just an aspect of the game that was really important to him.

Likewise, I don’t see any competition among my current group in this area. When we were playing Decipher’s LotR game it wasn’t comments about how some PCs were advancing slower than others; it was comments about how the whole party was advancing slower than they wanted. (Or maybe just than they were used to.)

To ramble a bit: It feels so artificial to me. In most stories the characters don’t ever really progress in abilities significantly. When it does happen, it’s usually just one character. (e.g. Luke in Star Wars eps IV–VI.) Or it’s over a lifetime—usually over many stories with no real progression within any one story. (e.g. Conan) Or you have things like the Harry Potter series or Ender’s Game in which you’re dealing with young people going through their education. (Despite the fact that they’re also saving the world at the same time.)

(Of course, I ignore as much as possible all literature based on D&D.)

I’ve been wondering a lot about what an RPG would look like in which most PCs would be fairly static mechanically yet still have support for the youth whose education is ongoing or the character who choose to take up a new specialty late in life.

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

You have to remember, most group's games aren't very complicated or role playing heavy either because the players aren't interested or no one in the group can handle story-writing or game-mastering at that level. When the stories aren't splendidly engaging, gaining a level is the primary way to show the characters they have achieved something, and I think most people are interested in achievement.

As for xp, once you are familiar with a system, or if the game tells you how many sessions are 'supposed' to equal a level gain, abandon xp and just give out experience at a rate the GM and players are comfortable with. I abandoned calculating XP in 3.X DnD because it was just another time-waster. I knew how many sessions I wanted a level to be, and then gave out a little more or a little less xp per session depending on how effective the PC's were.

 

[amethal]

You have to remember, most group's games aren't very complicated or role playing heavy either because the players aren't interested or no one in the group can handle story-writing or game-mastering at that level. When the stories aren't splendidly engaging, gaining a level is the primary way to show the characters they have achieved something, and I think most people are interested in achievement.

I'd never really considered it before, but I agree with you.

In D&D 3.5 there is also a strong incentive to get as much gold as possible, to buy better magic items. I have a lot more issues with this than I do with the XP system.

Carrying 45 goblin shortswords out of the dungeon so you can sell them later (presumably to more goblins - who else would want to buy them?), haggling over the amount of the reward when asked by a farmer to try and find his missing child, having characters whose short term goal is always "find the nearest shop", none of this is the kind of game I want to play.

Groups can slow down or speed up XP progression to suit their personal tastes, but you tinker with the wealth system at your peril.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Don’t take this as disagreement with anything you wrote, but I’ll share more of my experiences.

When I first really noticed how important mechanical advancement was for a friend of mine was years ago when we were playing primarily GURPS and Rolemaster. It was truly not an upmanship thing with him, but just an aspect of the game that was really important to him.

Likewise, I don’t see any competition among my current group in this area. When we were playing Decipher’s LotR game it wasn’t comments about how some PCs were advancing slower than others; it was comments about how the whole party was advancing slower than they wanted. (Or maybe just than they were used to.)

To ramble a bit: It feels so artificial to me. In most stories the characters don’t ever really progress in abilities significantly. When it does happen, it’s usually just one character. (e.g. Luke in Star Wars eps IV–VI.) Or it’s over a lifetime—usually over many stories with no real progression within any one story. (e.g. Conan) Or you have things like the Harry Potter series or Ender’s Game in which you’re dealing with young people going through their education. (Despite the fact that they’re also saving the world at the same time.)

(Of course, I ignore as much as possible all literature based on D&D.)

I’ve been wondering a lot about what an RPG would look like in which most PCs would be fairly static mechanically yet still have support for the youth whose education is ongoing or the character who choose to take up a new specialty late in life.

You could try it out yourself - just don't grant any XP. I think this is one of the aspects where "classic" stories and RPGs do sometimes diverge. But are from all - Conan becomes a King eventually. The Hobbits gain fighting skill and when they get home, they easily defeat the bandits trying to take control of it.
Many other heroes are only found in a single book or movie. Some of them feature advancement, others have the characters already be strong and well-trained (typical for action heroes). Others feature a kind of "mix" - superhero stories grant the characters often a sudden boost (gaining their superpowers), but they have to learn using their powers. But after that, not much is happening in that regard.

I think it is hard to say there is one consistent type of advancement in stories.

But very often, advancement might seem not as significant because we rarely watch the protagonists of story their entire career. We only watch the highlights. PCs, we follow from 1st level to 20 or 30th level in D&D.

There are games where this is different. Many point buy systems tend to have you start with a certain degree of competence, and advancement is typically slower. In Shadowrun, you would probably train one or two skills after each Run - a far cry from 2+INT skill points, dx hit points, a feat or spell and a +1 to attacks or saves you might get in D&D after one adventure.

Anyway, advancement in RPGs an come in the "role-play" reward - succeeding at a task, getting revenge, finding allies and friends. But your character is barely expressed by all this "world" connections. In mechanic terms he is described in great detail in entirely other aspects. It seems to follow naturally that players will want to see their "success" or advancement also be reflected in the mechanical representation of their characters.

If you'd find a way to represent "deeds" in mechanics, maybe you wouldn't need "skill" advancement.

To bring up my favorite example for everything: Torg grants PCs possibility points for concluding individual acts in a storyline (adventure) or the entire storyline. You can use them to improve your skills or statistics, but you could also just "hoard" them and use them to improve specific results you roll. In Torg, these possiblities actually have a ingame reflection, and it is a resource highly sought by the High Lords, each having ways to "steal" them from a hapless victim or even an entire cosm. But they also reflect "story" success - a special case is using the "Glory" card, that grants each party member another 3 possibilities if they perform a spectacular task (rolling 60+ with a d20 roll again on a 10 or 20 mechanic). Aside from this highly sought benefit, it also allows the characters to further manipulate the world, bringing the "good side" closer to a win.

If you use a concept like possibilities in an even more abstract context, and use it to describe allies, friendships, experience, and limit or remove its ability to increase other statistics, and focus on their ability to manipulate the outcome of random events (dice rolls etc.), you could create a game where characters abilities are mostly stable. No character growth in the sense of more powerful spells or attacks, but character growth in the sense of story.

A character doesn't succeed on his Gather Information check because he has improved his ranks by 2 points, but because (mechanically) he is spending a possibility (story-wise) relying on the contacts he made in past adventures.

Of course, this would be a very abstract game and not for everyone.
You could make it a lot more concrete, and end up with a reflavored skill approach, like this:
- Contacts (Arcana)
- Contacts (Streetwise)
- Allies (Military)
- Allies (Economic)