• 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
Hey, I said you were right. The CR system obviously did not work for you and just as obviously, that's because the system is flawed.

There's always one. In all the years I was on the D&D forum and here, you are the first person I've seen claim that CR worked. LOL
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
He's not. You just need to read beyond a few isolated one liners. Note page 50 of the 3.5 DMG. There are a number of factors listed that will tend to make encounters more difficult - lack of wizards, rogues, clerics, and fighter-types are all noted. By implication, the default CR is based on a well-rounded party that includes a cleric, wizard, fighter, and rogue (or their reasonable equivalents).

Except that a well rounded party will find itself losing to like CR creatures, where a non-well rounded party will toast that encounter, and vice versa. CR is horribly broken in 3e.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
In other words, an orc is about CR 1 and ogres are CR 3. Huh. What were you saying about CRs can't work?

That it's utterly broken. There's a reason I chose an ogre that a fighter might actually be able to beat 1 on 1, rather than a different CR 3 creature that would destroy the fighter.
 

pemerton

Legend
3e plays quite differently than 1e.
Absolutely. 3E, overall, has more in common with 4e than AD&D on the PC-build side. (Perhaps not on the resolution side.)

Never minding the vast gulf between how 2e presented the game and how 1e presents the game. 2e is far, far more story focused and centered around what was considered role playing of the time.
It's hard for me to dispassionate about either of the editions (2nd ed AD&D and 3E) you've mentioned!, but I'll confine myself to this: 2nd ed takes the AD&D mechanics, tweaks them rather slightly, and then asserts that you can use them to run a story-oriented game - provided only that the GM is prepared to ignore or override the mechanics basically at any point.

In my view, nuff said.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Except that a well rounded party will find itself losing to like CR creatures, where a non-well rounded party will toast that encounter, and vice versa. CR is horribly broken in 3e.

That just tells me there's lots of variation in the way the game plays out. And given the number of choices players have for building their characters, the options available for them in play, and the variability of the dice rolls - duh. That said, I found CR a reasonably useful starting point and not horribly broken at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
And, let's be fair, this is true for EVERY edition of D&D. 3e plays quite differently than 1e. It has to. It's a much more intricate game with a whole lot more bells and whistles. In the days before skills, the experience at the table of trying to find a secret door was very, very different than afterwards. 3e, in many ways, is a reaction to the issue of pixel-bitching that could be (not had to be, but could be) a problem in earlier edition play. Instead of the players trying to "outthink" the DM, you simply roll your die and find that trap.

3e doesn't have to play all that differently from 1e. The success a lot of us have had running 1e modules with 3e rules underscores that quite well. And I think you're inventing more differences, by the rules, than you realize. In both editions, characters searched for secret doors fundamentally the same way - they pick a spot to search and roll for it. The dice may be different (as are the odds) but process isn't all that different. Same with searching for traps. A lot of people went the pixel-bitching route in 1e, but there was also the die rolling method. And for my money, picking a place to search for secret doors and rolling 1 in 6 isn't really a different process from picking a spot to search and rolling a d20 and adding my search score for a DC 20. In 3e you could still try to outthink the DM and pick the most suitable places and methods for your searches.
 


Hussar

Legend
3e doesn't have to play all that differently from 1e. The success a lot of us have had running 1e modules with 3e rules underscores that quite well. And I think you're inventing more differences, by the rules, than you realize. In both editions, characters searched for secret doors fundamentally the same way - they pick a spot to search and roll for it. The dice may be different (as are the odds) but process isn't all that different. Same with searching for traps. A lot of people went the pixel-bitching route in 1e, but there was also the die rolling method. And for my money, picking a place to search for secret doors and rolling 1 in 6 isn't really a different process from picking a spot to search and rolling a d20 and adding my search score for a DC 20. In 3e you could still try to outthink the DM and pick the most suitable places and methods for your searches.

Well, don't get too lost in the examples.

I've seen you talk about running 1e modules in 3e and I have to admit, I've never had any luck doing it. I had to rewrite pretty much the entire module. The monster numbers were always wrong - if you did a 1:1 conversion, the 1e module would obliterate a 3e party. OTOH, the 3e characters just had so many more options outside of combat that 1e never had that it just made the modules very difficult to run for me.

I could do more "inspired by" adventures no problem. But, straight up running 1e modules in 3e just never worked for me.

But, my basic point still stands. Hand a 1e player a 3e character sheet and he cannot actually play. He cannot read that character sheet. Nothing would make sense. Not that the learning curve is that hard, it isn't. Just that the basic mechanics of the game are all quite different. I have a difficult time with claims of "the game is very close" when you cannot actually play a different version of the game without relearning most of the rules.

Isn't the whole OSR movement, which started in 3e, predicated on the idea that no, 3e is NOT the same as older versions of D&D? Thunderfoot is a pretty big forum whose basic premise is that 3e is not the same as 1e. It's not like I'm pulling this out of thin air.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That just tells me there's lots of variation in the way the game plays out. And given the number of choices players have for building their characters, the options available for them in play, and the variability of the dice rolls - duh. That said, I found CR a reasonably useful starting point and not horribly broken at all.

There is a lot of variation. That's why CR is broken. CR says that it works with a party of 4. It doesn't. If it doesn't work as intended, it's broken. Is it a starting point? Sure. I've found that if I take the party level, look at everything of that CR plus all CRs 2-3 higher and lower, then compare the abilities of the monsters to the party, I can gauge an encounter properly. CR only gives me the broad range, though. I can't actually use it to make an encounter as it is intended to be used. Only by comparing abilities to the party mix can I figure out if an encounter will be easy, hard or moderate.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top