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

pemerton

Legend
1st edition D&D was designed around creating a world where the Players were challenged to survive, 3rd edition was where it shifted to trying to create a game, thought 3e was still pretty world oriented. 4th and 5th edition are about a game where Players are given a carrot on a stick to keep them playing and aren't expected to face a serious challenge.
1st AD&D is populated with such creatures as ear seekers, rot grubs, mimics, lurkers above, trappers and rust monsters - none of which make any sense as part of a world, and all of which are purely game devices, for disrupting player expectations (about chests, floors, ceilings, listening at doors, searching bodies, etc).

Modules like White Plume Mountain, Ghost Tower of Inverness or Tomb of Horrors are 100% game. They have no in-world logic to them.

Not to mention, the Dragonlance modules that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already referred to belong to the 1st ed AD&D era.

Instead of spurious claims about who was "serious" and who is not, let's talk about how the goals and expectations of mainstream RPGs have changed over the past 40-odd years. That might actually be a worthwhile conversation, although it requires acknowledging that there's not one single thing that counts as RPGing - which some posters seem to find hard to do.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
A lot of discussion of consequences seems to focus on consequences to the PCs, which take place in the fiction. But those consequences are purely imaginary. From the point of view of gameplay, surely the relevant consequences are those that happen in the real world, to the players.

In classic D&D there are more ways for the numbers on a PC sheet to get smaller (level drain, magic items failing saving throws, permanent PC death requiring generation of a new PC, etc). But what is the significance of this for the player? If s/he is still allowed to roll up a new PC and join in the dungeon-delving, what has s/he lost?

If it's hardcore Old School (which Lew Pulsipher certainly is, judging by his old WD columns) and she's rolling up a new 1st level PC to play alongside 6th levellers then she's lost a fair bit. :D
 

pemerton

Legend
If it's hardcore Old School (which Lew Pulsipher certainly is, judging by his old WD columns) and she's rolling up a new 1st level PC to play alongside 6th levellers then she's lost a fair bit.
Sure, and I noticed the smiley - but even then, the loss mightn't be that harsh. Depending on the XP and treasure distribution approach taken, that 1st level PC might gain levels fairly quickly. And for a good chunk of the game (eg a lot of exploration activities, and the social part of the game) level is not really a factor in resolution. (Magic items can be more important - so the campaign's practices around "inheritance" from PC to PC might be quite important.)

To pick a stark contrast, bringing a 1st level PC into the final segment of a contemporary 3E/PF-type dungeon crawl (or even a more combat-oriented classic adventure like the Giants, or WPM) will be basically hopeless: no chance of making the DCs, no chance of contributing meaningfully to combat.

As an aside: an interesting bit of Gygax's DMG (or, actually, two interesting bits - because he splits the discussion over the introductory section, and then "conducting the game" 100-odd pages in) is the discussion of what level of PC an experienced player is allowed to introduce into the game. He seems to have realised that the replay value of those very low levels (especially 1st level) can be limited.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Funny thing is, Raise Dead in the 1e DMG is EXACTLY the same price as it is in 3e - 5000 gp.
True, but have you checked Restoration? :)

Note that clerics didn't have to tithe, although paladins were giving up 10%.

But, the thing is, I'm kinda confused. I'm told that the point of play in 1e was to get the treasure, more than kill the monster. So, if you're getting the treasure, where is it going? Doesn't that mean that most of your XP is coming from treasure? So, a 5th level character with about 30000 xp, has likely amassed about 20000 gp. Sure, it cost him 15k in training, fair enough, but, that still leaves 5k left over.
To get from 1st to 5th (thus training into 2-3-4-5) is going to cost a lot more than 15K if one follows the 1e DMG to the letter. Even assuming perfect roleplay (thus no penalties) the training will be 1500 per level being trained into each time (so here it's 3K + 4.5K + 6K + 7.5K = 21K) and if there's any penalties for poor roleplay etc. then a multiplier hits the training costs for that level on a x2 to x4 scale based on the DM's judgement.

Now, in all fairness I'm not sure how many groups ever used the roleplay-penalty rules as written, but the 1500 x level was likely common enough.

And while our intrepid hero might well earn another 20-30K by 6th level 9K of that's going straight into training; and by then maybe she's looking to start saving up for her stronghold a few levels hence.

The idea that a group couldn't afford a raise dead? Seriously? Individual PC's could afford it. And, the notion that parties didn't find the treasure in modules is simply not true. Go back and read those modules. The majority of treasure isn't hidden. It's right there to be found. The overwhelming majority of the treasure in modules is not hidden at all.
Not only have I read nearly all of those modules*, I've both DMed and played in quite a few of them...and I'd take a rough guess that the average scoop rate based on what's available overall is 75% at best. Sure, in some adventures the party cleans up, but in others they miss more than they find.

* - some years ago I decided to try and collect them all (the real versions, not pdf); I've now got about 90% of them - along with a bunch of Judges' Guild and other stuff - and with one or two exceptions what's left are pretty hard targets that I'll either never see or never be able to afford.

Also, I looked through my DMG this evening and couldn't find where Gygax suggests it'll take about 50 sessions to get to name level - have you got a page reference for that?

Lan-"and in the session I just finished running an hour ago the party lost through failed item saves wa-ay more treasure than they found"-efan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
1st AD&D is populated with such creatures as ear seekers, rot grubs, mimics, lurkers above, trappers and rust monsters - none of which make any sense as part of a world, and all of which are purely game devices, for disrupting player expectations (about chests, floors, ceilings, listening at doors, searching bodies, etc).
Ear seekers and rot grubs could easily just be a couple of particularly dangerous fantasy-world insect types. Trappers aren't that much of a stretch from some creatures found in our own real world e.g. venus flytrap. But I'll concede on lurkers, mimics and rust monsters...and piercers, for all that...as being more gamist than anything else.

Modules like White Plume Mountain, Ghost Tower of Inverness or Tomb of Horrors are 100% game. They have no in-world logic to them.
I'll give you Tomb of Horrors, as it was really never intended to be anything more than a pure gamist challenge in the first place for some of Gygax's players. White Plume...it's bizarre, but in a fantasy world it's not out of line and I don't see it as being nearly as game-y as ToH. Ghost Tower is also bizarre - it has some very game-first elements within it and some other elements that could really work well in any dungeon. It was written as a tournament module and though it wasn't really converted that well for open play I sure had a blast (and so did the players) when I ran it a few years back. Good times!

Not to mention, the Dragonlance modules that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already referred to belong to the 1st ed AD&D era.
They're of that era in real-world time, but they're more of the 2e era in design and expected play/DM style.

Instead of spurious claims about who was "serious" and who is not, let's talk about how the goals and expectations of mainstream RPGs have changed over the past 40-odd years. That might actually be a worthwhile conversation, although it requires acknowledging that there's not one single thing that counts as RPGing - which some posters seem to find hard to do.
I've been trying to do that - talk about how the most mainsteam of games (D&D) has changed in its rewards and consequences over the last 40-odd years - in follow-up to the OP which was also trying to do the same.

To pick a stark contrast, bringing a 1st level PC into the final segment of a contemporary 3E/PF-type dungeon crawl (or even a more combat-oriented classic adventure like the Giants, or WPM) will be basically hopeless: no chance of making the DCs, no chance of contributing meaningfully to combat.

As an aside: an interesting bit of Gygax's DMG (or, actually, two interesting bits - because he splits the discussion over the introductory section, and then "conducting the game" 100-odd pages in) is the discussion of what level of PC an experienced player is allowed to introduce into the game. He seems to have realised that the replay value of those very low levels (especially 1st level) can be limited.
1e and 5e (and to some extent 2e) share one important thing: the game remains playable with a much greater level range within the party than 3e* or 4e will tolerate.

* - I'm lumping PF in with 3e as for these purposes they're close enough to the same.

That said, I don't start everyone over at 1st level once things get rolling. I usually set a "floor" that slowly rises as the party's overall level goes up. In the two parties I've got going in my game right now the floor is 6th in one (party levels are 6-10) and 4th in the other (range currently is 4-8). 1e can handle a 4-level range within a party quite well. 3e or 4e? Not so much...

Lan-"if you want modules with highly variable amounts of (il)logic attached, check out 1978-1981 era Judges' Guild offerings"-efan
 

S'mon

Legend
Also, I looked through my DMG this evening and couldn't find where Gygax suggests it'll take about 50 sessions to get to name level - have you got a page reference for that?

Gygax gave no official progression rate recommendation, AIR it's anecdotal from an interview with him.

Moldvay Basic suggests at least one PC should hit 2nd level after 3 sessions "or give more treasure". Mentzer suggests a guideline 5 sessions to level at least after the low levels, which would be 10 level ups in a year of weekly play, slightly faster but close to Gygax's anecdotal AIR "Name Level (8 levels) in a year, then a couple each year thereafter".
 

S'mon

Legend
1e and 5e (and to some extent 2e) share one important thing: the game remains playable with a much greater level range within the party than 3e* or 4e will tolerate.

Very true. For 3e/PF & 4e I keep PCs within 2 levels, or even just use a Party Level. Classic, 1e and even moreso 5e work great with a range of levels, which has major advantages for continuity of play. One of my 5e Wilderlands players has an 18th level Barbarian, played up from 1st level over the past 2.5 years. If I had to bring in 2-3 more 18th level world-shaking superheroes to accompany him every time he adventured the game would collapse (& in fact I had to put it on hiatus for awhile before I realised this). As it is he is accompanied by a Barb-15 Dragonborn PC, and has just met a new PC - a Level 8 Wizard. :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pemerton

Legend
To get from 1st to 5th (thus training into 2-3-4-5) is going to cost a lot more than 15K if one follows the 1e DMG to the letter. Even assuming perfect roleplay (thus no penalties) the training will be 1500 per level being trained into each time (so here it's 3K + 4.5K + 6K + 7.5K = 21K) and if there's any penalties for poor roleplay etc. then a multiplier hits the training costs for that level on a x2 to x4 scale based on the DM's judgement.
You are using the wrong levels: as per DMG p 86, "The level of the aspiring character should be computed at current (not to be gained) level." Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s figure of 15,000 is correct, assuming a "roleplay" factor of 1: 1+2+3+4 = 10, x 1500 = 15,000 gp.

Ghost Tower is also bizarre - it has some very game-first elements within it and some other elements that could really work well in any dungeon. It was written as a tournament module and though it wasn't really converted that well for open play I sure had a blast (and so did the players) when I ran it a few years back. Good times!
I didn't say it was a bad module. My point was only that it is a counterexample (one of several) to the "game"/"world" dichotomy drawn by [MENTION=6756765]Rygar[/MENTION].

pemerton said:
the Dragonlance modules that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already referred to belong to the 1st ed AD&D era.
They're of that era in real-world time, but they're more of the 2e era in design and expected play/DM style.
This seems like the worst sort of projection of the present onto the past!

At the time the DL modules were written there was no 2nd ed or "2nd ed era". They were written, and published, and played, under the 1st ed rules, years before 2nd ed was written and published. They are an important part of the evidence for what constituted 1st ed AD&D play, and they show that dungeon crawling in the classic mode was only one component of the full range of play.
[MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] himself recognised the breadth of playstyles right back in his White Dwarf columns from the late 70s and early 80s. He had (and still seems to have) strong views about his preferred way to play, but he never made the mistake of thinking that it was the only way to play D&D/RPGs.
 

Hussar

Legend
True, but have you checked Restoration? :)

To get from 1st to 5th (thus training into 2-3-4-5) is going to cost a lot more than 15K if one follows the 1e DMG to the letter. Even assuming perfect roleplay (thus no penalties) the training will be 1500 per level being trained into each time (so here it's 3K + 4.5K + 6K + 7.5K = 21K) and if there's any penalties for poor roleplay etc. then a multiplier hits the training costs for that level on a x2 to x4 scale based on the DM's judgement.[

Now, in all fairness I'm not sure how many groups ever used the roleplay-penalty rules as written, but the 1500 x level was likely common enough.

IIRC, it's 1500 gpxthe level you were, not your new level. So, it's 1500 gp to go from 1st to 2nd, not 3000.
/snip
Not only have I read nearly all of those modules*, I've both DMed and played in quite a few of them...and I'd take a rough guess that the average scoop rate based on what's available overall is 75% at best. Sure, in some adventures the party cleans up, but in others they miss more than they find.

* - some years ago I decided to try and collect them all (the real versions, not pdf); I've now got about 90% of them - along with a bunch of Judges' Guild and other stuff - and with one or two exceptions what's left are pretty hard targets that I'll either never see or never be able to afford.

Also, I looked through my DMG this evening and couldn't find where Gygax suggests it'll take about 50 sessions to get to name level - have you got a page reference for that?

Lan-"and in the session I just finished running an hour ago the party lost through failed item saves wa-ay more treasure than they found"-efan

IIRC, he talks about hitting name level in about a year of play. I am not sure about the page level. A quick google search turned up an article on Dragonsfoot which quoted Gygax in '75 saying that there was an 8th level magic user after 8 months of play. Take that for what you wish.

But, again, I really disagree with the idea that the PC's lose out on much of the treasure in adventures. Those published adventures didn't exactly hide the treasure that well and considering the point of play is to amass the treasure, then if the party is missing 40% of the treasure in an adventure, they aren't playing very well.
 

Hussar

Legend
I think this is an excellent post.

The other thing I would say needs to be kept in mind is: 1st edition D&D was designed around creating a world where the Players were challenged to survive, 3rd edition was where it shifted to trying to create a game, thought 3e was still pretty world oriented. 4th and 5th edition are about a game where Players are given a carrot on a stick to keep them playing and aren't expected to face a serious challenge.

There's a lot of signals that the goal today is creating a game, not a world. Without even getting into the mechanics (Some of which have been discussed endlessly), look at the changes to the flavor of the game. The "Legendary Heroes" aspect has been slowly removed (Tensor, Bigby, Mordenkainen), Dinosaurs went from being named Dinosaurs to being anime-style names, you don't have to worry about laws of physics (Underwater fireballs, Lightning bolts hitting Platemail, or Monks knocking over the Tarrasque).

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons described a world where Players were placed to survive, Dungeons and Dragons describes a game where Players are placed to enjoy a non-stop series of rewards with little risk. IMO it's a hugely negative change and why I ultimately went back to Pathfinder.

LOL. Funny how people want to claim things for AD&D, but, ignore what's actually in the books:

1e DMG page 9 said:
As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-thon-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top