• 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
Now brace yourself: CR worked for me, too!
I suppose, everyone who disagrees with you regarding CR is on your ignore list ;)

Nobody is on my ignore list. First, I think everyone whether they disagree with me or not, has something good to say at some point. Some more often than others fore sure, though. Second, I'm not a bully. The block mechanic of this site forces the one you block to also block you, against their will. That's bullying and I won't ever do that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
there is some single skill called "GMing" which is portable from Molvay Basic to DitV to Rise of the Runelords.

My lewt Moldvay Basic skillz are certainly transferable to my current
Rise of the Runelords game. :D

That said, I started off by running RoTR in 1e AD&D and after a great (edit) 15 sessions of sandboxing and largely ignoring The Plot, the group TPK'd against the end-of-book-1 BBEG. Which necessitated rebooting the entire campaign. So I guess you have a good point - in a Moldvayesque dungeoncrawl sandbox a TPK is not a big issue, in plot-heavy Paizo AP it's a disaster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

S'mon

Legend
In that light, I should be able to take my Basic or 1e premises and procedures and port them forward to any subsequent editon, because at least in theory it's the same bloody game.#

I hope we are mature enough now to accept without ire that Moldvay Basic D&D and 4e D&D, while both
potentially great games for what they are each trying to do, are not the same game.
 

pemerton

Legend
I hope we are mature enough now to accept without ire that Moldvay Basic D&D and 4e D&D, while both
potentially great games for what they are each trying to do, are not the same game.
I remember posting, back around (say) 2009/10, that I felt 4e let me realise the sort of adventure promised in the Foreword to Moldvay Basic (mysterious hermits gifting swords, freeing the land from the dragon tyrant, etc).

Implicit in that was that Moldvay Basic doesn't realise that promise.

That's not a criticism of Moldvay Basic (except perhaps that its foreword is a bit misleading). They're different games for different purposes. That's a good thing!
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
So you really think 4 fighters is equal to 4 wizards? Wow. Nice!

Correct, and 4-7th level fails to work properly for all level 4-7 groups. Some combinations of 4th level groups will find it too hard. Some combinations of level 6 and 7 groups will cakewalk through it. It's not quite as borked at CR, but is is borked.
In many of the classic modules, once you dug in a bit it would clarify the level suggestions along the lines of, say, "this adventure is intended for 4th to 7th level characters with a total of roughly 25-30 levels preferably including at least one Cleric" - or something like that.

Even then, the level suggestions are merely a guideline - sometimes more accurate than others. :)

Lan-"and keep in mind that CR, also, is just a guideline"-efan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
Just anecdotal, I realize; but in the 3e game I played in we were put through a few 1e modules (or parts thereof) and it all seemed to work fine. I've no idea how much tweaking the DM had to do behind the scenes, but the end result was quite familiar (I'd been through at least one of the modules before).

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.
I see the OSR movement as more of a reaction to 4e, and also to Pathfinder which kinda takes 3e even further out to sea.

Lan-"Castle Amber in 3e - a wonderful example of high risk, high reward adventuring"-efan
 

Hussar

Legend
Just anecdotal, I realize; but in the 3e game I played in we were put through a few 1e modules (or parts thereof) and it all seemed to work fine. I've no idea how much tweaking the DM had to do behind the scenes, but the end result was quite familiar (I'd been through at least one of the modules before).

I see the OSR movement as more of a reaction to 4e, and also to Pathfinder which kinda takes 3e even further out to sea.

Lan-"Castle Amber in 3e - a wonderful example of high risk, high reward adventuring"-efan

Really? When Thunderfoot won't even let you mention 3e? OSR predates 4e by quite a few years. OSRIC was published two years before 4e. And I believe there were earlier versions than that. I do know that OSR has been a thing long before 4e.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
While there are obvious points of shared DNA between editions, they ARE different games. Heck, I always point to the character sheet. Hand a 2e player a 3e character sheet and he won't even know what it is. Nothing will make sense. Hand that same 2e player a 4e character sheet and he's even more out to sea. Even a 5e character isn't really anything like a 1e character. Again, sure, there are shared elements, but, let's be honest here, these are not the same games.

I have to see what kind of character sheets you have been using over the years. Sure a few saves changed here and there but nothing making sense? Hmm.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Letting players assign rolled stats was one of the stupidest ever design decisions IMNSHO. :D If you are going to allow allocation, you absolutely need to be using point buy or an array. Conversely, rolling in
order has much to commend it, creating (birthing?) organic-feeling characters who often seem
to have a sort of life of their own that point buy/array/roll-then-assign does not provide.

I have nothing against rolling in order to create characters.

After all I must have rolled thousands of them when I was playing the old Gold box SSI games.
 

Jacob Marley

Adventurer
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.

Really? When Thunderfoot won't even let you mention 3e? OSR predates 4e by quite a few years. OSRIC was published two years before 4e. And I believe there were earlier versions than that. I do know that OSR has been a thing long before 4e.

Thunderfoot? Do you mean Dragonsfoot?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top