Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[Mallus]

At the beginning of the session, hand each of the players five poker chips, and keep five for yourself. Whenever one player likes something another player does, he hands that player a chip. Redeem all poker chips for experience at the end of the game. This encourages the players not just to do the things they like, but to dabble in doing things all the other players like.

Good idea! But I'd definitely would be handing out AP's or something like them. A finer-grained, immediately usable resource.

 

[buzz]

But let's say I awarded Action Points to players for doing what they enjoyed most; butt-kickers would get AP's for butt-kicking, immersion-ophiles for playing whole scenes in character, schemers for scheming... that would rock. Not only is it rewarding players for playing the way they see fit, it rewards taking risks. The more proactive you are, the more resources you accumulate.

I agree; Action Points are a much better "encourage the fun" reward than XP.

 

[buzz]

Out of curiosity, what difference does the system make? Isn't how much you trust the person running the game the deciding factor?

IMO, because D&D is largely about tactics and system mastery, so I really want XP rewards to be tied to what I'm able to accomplish in-game. E.g., my Monday game has been going for almost five years, and we're getting close to 20th level. I really, really like that my PC has earned his XP by genuinely overcoming the challenges the DM has been throwing at us. It validates the effort I've put into mastering the system and keeping that PC alive for so long. If I got XP just for showing up, at the DM's whimsy, and regardless of what happened in the game, it'd feel like a waste of time to me.

SotC, otoh, is largely about emulating (and reveling in) the pulp genre. I.e., you make cool, pulpy PCs that do cool, pulpy things as part of creating a cool, pulpy story. There aren't really even any rules for advancement in the rulebook. The system is simple and powerful, and playing is typically not an exercise in tactics. Ergo, I'd be fine with a game that just focused on different power levels, shifting gears every so often. "Let's be scrappy newcomers!" "Okay, now let's be seasoned, world-famous adventurers!"

That said, I'd probably prefer it if advancement happened organically, i.e., in-game events justified adding a new Aspect or two.

 

[buzz]

Or you could do it more democratically, removing the idea of the DM as judge entirely. At the beginning of the session, hand each of the players five poker chips, and keep five for yourself. Whenever one player likes something another player does, he hands that player a chip. Redeem all poker chips for experience at the end of the game. This encourages the players not just to do the things they like, but to dabble in doing things all the other players like.

Also, I'm really on a crusade for physical tokens as meta-game elements at the moment.

Tokens rule, as does letting players reward each other.

 

[Mallus]

IMO, because D&D is largely about tactics and system mastery, so I really want XP rewards to be tied to what I'm able to accomplish in-game.

That makes sense. My D&D isn't like that, but I see where you're coming from; all of D&D to you is more like what I'd label "tournament play".

SotC, otoh, is largely about emulating (and reveling in) the pulp genre. I.e., you make cool, pulpy PCs that do cool, pulpy things as part of creating a cool, pulpy story.

I play every RPG like you play SotC.

 

[marune]

I play every RPG like you play SotC.

That's called "simulationist" and your "tournament play" is called "gamist".

Problem is, D&D is built (4e even more) to support gamist more than simulationist play (which is known to be a problematic play style, but I won't go in details here).

Classes, levels , XP based on overcoming challenges, CRs, and abstract HPs are the most gamists concepts of D&D.

D&D also doesn't support at all a "narrativist" play where the goal is to do collaborative story-building.

That doesn't mean a specific group can't do it anyway, only that it would be easier to do it with a game built to support the given playstyle.

 

[LostSoul]

But let's say I awarded Action Points to players for doing what they enjoyed most; butt-kickers would get AP's for butt-kicking, immersion-ophiles for playing whole scenes in character, schemers for scheming... that would rock. Not only is it rewarding players for playing the way they see fit, it rewards taking risks. The more proactive you are, the more resources you accumulate.

Yeah, something like that! I wasn't clear enough in the first post - I meant it to be a group award; when the DM looks around the table and sees everyone into whatever the player just did, then he hands out the action point.

edit: Oh yeah, and I'd retain whatever system you use for levelling, just tacking this on top of things.

 

[Mallus]

That's called "simulationist" and your "tournament play" is called "gamist".

I reject your possibly Forge-inspired terms and substitute my own .

Problem is, D&D is built (4e even more) to support gamist more than simulationist play

On this we agree.

Classes, levels , XP based on overcoming challenges, and CRs are the most gamists concepts of D&D.

This too.

D&D also doesn't support at all a "narrativist" play where the goal is to do collaborative story-building.

But here I couldn't disagree more. I don't need rules that act on the game narrative directly in order to create an enjoyable game narrative with my players. I like (basically) working with a low-level, primarily physical-task resolution system. I'm not sure I want rules all up in the story-space of the game. Let that all be handled through unmediated negotiations with the players.

That doesn't mean a specific group can't do it anyway, only that it would be easier to do it with a game built to support the given playstyle.

D&D's benign neglect for story-driven play works fine me.

 

[marune]

I reject your possibly Forge-inspired terms and substitute my own .

The idea to have a glossary is to avoid to re-explain the same thing in every topic

But here I couldn't disagree more. I don't need rules that act on the game narrative directly in order to create an enjoyable game narrative with my players. I like (basically) working with a low-level, primarily physical-task resolution system. I'm not sure I want rules all up in the story-space of the game. Let that all be handled through unmediated negotiations with the players.

The idea is to have a system, including a reward sub-system that positively support the playstyle the game is built around. In D&D, if you give XP by RAW, the players are better to use the best strategy available for them to overcome the challenges, not doing what their character "should do" (sim) or what would give the best story (nar).

 

[Professor Phobos]

The idea is to have a system, including a reward sub-system that positively support the playstyle the game is built around. In D&D, if you give XP by RAW, the players are better to use the best strategy available for them to overcome the challenges, not doing what their character "should do" (sim) or what would give the best story (nar).

If all it takes to change the style of the game one way or the other is to mod the XP rules, then surely D&D can't be that far off?

Also, continuum.