Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2013 21:50:24 GMT -8
Should a game incentivize role-play?
We have game mechanics that reward desired behavior when role-playing by giving out experience points or bennies. The argument is, should be there an incentive to role-play (beyond it being in the nature of the game) and what that could mean not just in terms of game mechanics but in terms of player psychology.
PROs: Rewarding Desired Behavior By giving players rewards for desired behavior you are reinforcing that behavior.
Creating Habits For newer players, creating an incentive for role-playing and rewarding them when the desired behavior occurs they are apt to repeat that behavior. After several repetitions such play may become habit.
CONs: Remove Incentive, Remove Motivation Players may feel slighted if it becomes more difficult to earn role-play rewards. This may occur if the game master sees that the desired behavior is occurring more frequently and wants to "raise the bar" on whats expected. This may also occur if there is a natural cap on the rewards and even if the game master wanted to give the player more points/tokens they couldn't. If the player can no longer gain a reward will they stop proactively role-playing until such a time that they can? Is reaching the natural cap jarring, snapping them out of the habit of role-playing that the mechanic helped create?
Player Conflict with Game Master Conflict may arise between the player and the game master if no reward is given when the player feels one is warranted. This feeling may become exasperated when another player is rewarded after the aforementioned slighted player was passed up.
I'm currently working on a game where a natural reward cap would occur. Players would receive point(s) after what the game master determines is desired behavior/"good" role-playing. After earning 10 points they gain a +1 modifier to their dice rolls. Every 10 points increases the modifier by 1 up to a maximum of +5. Players may use up to/including all 5 modifier points on any roll (they could only use 1, 2, 3, or 4 of those points if desired and save the remainder). We have just added this mechanic to a game that is working very well without it but wanted to see how our test groups (which do contain new RPGers) respond to it.
What are your thoughts on incentivizing role-play behavior and it being another tool for the GM?
Cheers, adon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2013 13:26:48 GMT -8
I don't think you can force roleplay, and what one person sees as good roleplaying another might not. Perhaps I want to play a character who is somewhat antisocial, a ranger for instance who grew up mostly alone in the great forests with almost no contact with humans. I’m very loyal to my companions, and would give my life for them in an instance, but I’m uncomfortable around people and especially in cities. I speak very little and usually respond with nothing more than grunts or head nods when asked questions. I display my loyalty through my actions, giving my gold to other players without being asked if they need to buy supplies, keeping my weapons at the ready to defend them, and on occasion striking out at someone who I feel has insulted a friend. I'm playing my character as I think he would act.
The GM however might not see this and decide that my silence means I'm trying to avoid actual roleplaying and then I could end up penalized for not roleplaying in the way the GM thinks I should. Or if the GM understands what I’m doing I may get points but another player who doesn’t feel I’m roleplaying properly gets disgruntled because they see the GM giving me points.
Another problem, especially with new players, is that while you might train good habits as you mentioned, it’s also possible that you train bad habits without realizing it. Especially with new players the first thing they will start doing is emulating the other players who are getting points. Not so much roleplaying as copying because they know those actions get them bonus. Or you end up causing them to self limit themselves. They become trained to roleplay a very specific way because they know the GM feels it’s right, and that at means they may never branch out and try new ideas.
They learn which actions get them a cookie. Trying something else might get them a cookie, but it’s not guaranteed. The risk of experimentation begins to outweigh the reward and you end up training the players to metagame even if they don’t realize that they are doing it. You can start to stifle creativity as a result.
Now I’m not against incentives, I’m a huge fan of FATE and Savage Worlds, both of which have a system of bennies that are tied to Roleplay. However they also tie these rewards to a specific mechanic in the game. In FATE the player or the GM has to compel an aspect which then causes narrative problems for the player; adding drama to a scene. In Savage Worlds bennies can be handed out with a little more freedom but the most common reason for rewarding them is for playing to a characters hindrances and thus again causing problems for the player and adding drama. In both cases everyone can easily see why that bonus point is being given out because they can see the underlying mechanic.
Also in both cases the game system is designed from the ground up to use these points, and is balanced around them. Adding bennies to a system in which they aren’t already included can very quickly break the game and remove the fun for everyone.
I’m interested in hearing how your tests go, and I’m curious what base systems you are adding this to. Keep in mind that Bennies of the type you are describing tend to lend themselves far more to big heroic games and not so much to more gritty and realistic games. Every time one is used balance is temporarily thrown out the window after all.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on May 9, 2013 14:00:28 GMT -8
I've found that in game rewarding of Bennies leads to a "gimme! Gimme!" style of cookie chasing behavior. It seems more likely to disrupt game flow then enhance it.
After game rewards of bennies work better for me as we can talk about why what certain players did helped/hindered story development.
However if it was a one shot I might take a 5-10 min mid game break and do a quick Benny reward then.
Putting reroll mechanics into pathfinder have done little or nothing to our perceived game balance. PCs appear a little more ready to take a crazy risk but all in all that has lead to epic sessions with incredible successes and mind blowing failures despite rerolls...we play a pretty gritty pathfinder game though.
A dozen sessions in and the party is still scrounging for basic weapons and armor, still on the run from their near execution, still running out of water, fending off lingering disease and injuries, trying to not give in to demonic possession. Your basic good old fashion fun time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2013 19:08:26 GMT -8
For supposedly "fun" activities, offering a reward often lessens the appeal. It becomes like "work". I'll pick up trash in the neighborhood for free, or plant trees in a park for free. But if someone paid me $10/hour I wouldn't bother. There are plenty of studies that show that rewarding or incentivising things tends to backfire in the long run. It becomes a burdonsome task you are required to do to get the necessary benefit.
I most often see this when people offer rewards for roleplaying.. bonus XP or bennies or whatever. I think a more effective method is to say, "hey, at this table, we are expected to roleplay, if you don't wanna, then this game probably isn't your cup of tea."
As far as "Creating Habits"... I've played with 6 and 7 year olds that really got into roleplaying. Once they realized that they could say or do whatever they wanted in the game, and there were no parents to tell them they couldn't, they went crazy with roleplaying. I don't think you need to reward something that should be fun, or work to establish a habit... Unless you are saying that it is an acquired taste, like Sushi, or horror movies, or riding a roller coaster... some people just don't like it at first, but eventually learn to like it...
I am pretty strongly on the side of Expecting people to roleplay, and if they don't, then kick them out of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 9, 2013 19:38:10 GMT -8
I can see where you are coming from but using operant conditioning to reinforce a desired behaviour really only works with behaviours that are independent. Ie: exclusively in the control, or realm, of the individual alone. Role play is too much of a social exchange that manifests out of the interaction of several individuals, it is interdependent rather than independent . . . The best role player in the world would still be stuck if sat with a group of planks. Eg: saying "I'm gonna RP the fuck outta this" is a credible goal but impossible in isolation. Another way to look at it is RP is theatre - the best performance is no performance at all without an equally engaged audience (if a tree falls in a forest and no sees it or hears it did the tree fall?) RP should emerge from the structure of the game and the conduct of the group: where each is tailored, at the table, to suit the individuals concerned to achieve the desired goal. A universal reward system hazards too many assumptions about the people who play and leaves a potential avenue for abuse by players that delight in 'gaming the play' rather than playing the game. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on May 14, 2013 10:07:57 GMT -8
I'm really becoming seriously allergic to the type of game where players are given tokens of mechanical benefit (henceforth called bennies) for actions nebulously described as "good roleplaying" or "doing something cool." In the first place, I am already in a group that likes to roleplay, so we're going to do that stuff with or without bennies. In the second place, I think that I am actually less likely to be successful at doing genuinely cool stuff if I'm constantly calculating whether I can be cool enough to get more bennies. I also feel less fun or satisfaction when I do succeed in making the table laugh (or whatever), even if I get a bennie for it, because that's become the new minimum measure of success. If I don't get the bennie, I feel annoyed that my "good moment" wasn't good enough, and if I do get the bennie, well, that just means I performed up to standard.
Some people tout giving bennies to the players that they can then award to each other as a way to prevent GM bias, but I haven't found that to be an improvement. I vividly remember a session of Tenra Bansho Zero I was in last fall, where we all had aiki (bennies) to give each other; the problem was that I inadvertently wound up making the "straight man" character in the party. The others were all flashy, over-the-top, and/or certifiably insane; they were simply dripping with aiki and got more every time they opened their mouths. Me? I could hardly get noticed by the GM or the other players, and yet I think one could make a case for my character being the glue that was holding the other crazies together in the party, as well as having his own personality and backstory. It's like how there are certain roles that will never win you an academy award, no matter how well you play them. And because I couldn't get aiki, there were a lot of mechanical things I just couldn't do. ... Yeah, I'm still a little bitter about that session.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 14, 2013 11:08:22 GMT -8
I'm really becoming seriously allergic to the type of game where players are given tokens of mechanical benefit (henceforth called bennies) for actions nebulously described as "good roleplaying" or "doing something cool." In the first place, I am already in a group that likes to roleplay, so we're going to do that stuff with or without bennies. In the second place, I think that I am actually less likely to be successful at doing genuinely cool stuff if I'm constantly calculating whether I can be cool enough to get more bennies. I also feel less fun or satisfaction when I do succeed in making the table laugh (or whatever), even if I get a bennie for it, because that's become the new minimum measure of success. If I don't get the bennie, I feel annoyed that my "good moment" wasn't good enough, and if I do get the bennie, well, that just means I performed up to standard. Some people tout giving bennies to the players that they can then award to each other as a way to prevent GM bias, but I haven't found that to be an improvement. I vividly remember a session of Tenra Bansho Zero I was in last fall, where we all had aiki (bennies) to give each other; the problem was that I inadvertently wound up making the "straight man" character in the party. The others were all flashy, over-the-top, and/or certifiably insane; they were simply dripping with aiki and got more every time they opened their mouths. Me? I could hardly get noticed by the GM or the other players, and yet I think one could make a case for my character being the glue that was holding the other crazies together in the party, as well as having his own personality and backstory. It's like how there are certain roles that will never win you an academy award, no matter how well you play them. And because I couldn't get aiki, there were a lot of mechanical things I just couldn't do. ... Yeah, I'm still a little bitter about that session. A very good example of the nebulous nature of RP as a social exercise separate from the game mechanics. Plus I heartily endorse your earlier sentiment about mechanical bonuses for good RP as a result. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on May 14, 2013 11:32:50 GMT -8
I'm really becoming seriously allergic to the type of game where players are given tokens of mechanical benefit (henceforth called bennies) for actions nebulously described as "good roleplaying" or "doing something cool." In the first place, I am already in a group that likes to roleplay, so we're going to do that stuff with or without bennies. In the second place, I think that I am actually less likely to be successful at doing genuinely cool stuff if I'm constantly calculating whether I can be cool enough to get more bennies. I also feel less fun or satisfaction when I do succeed in making the table laugh (or whatever), even if I get a bennie for it, because that's become the new minimum measure of success. If I don't get the bennie, I feel annoyed that my "good moment" wasn't good enough, and if I do get the bennie, well, that just means I performed up to standard. Some people tout giving bennies to the players that they can then award to each other as a way to prevent GM bias, but I haven't found that to be an improvement. I vividly remember a session of Tenra Bansho Zero I was in last fall, where we all had aiki (bennies) to give each other; the problem was that I inadvertently wound up making the "straight man" character in the party. The others were all flashy, over-the-top, and/or certifiably insane; they were simply dripping with aiki and got more every time they opened their mouths. Me? I could hardly get noticed by the GM or the other players, and yet I think one could make a case for my character being the glue that was holding the other crazies together in the party, as well as having his own personality and backstory. It's like how there are certain roles that will never win you an academy award, no matter how well you play them. And because I couldn't get aiki, there were a lot of mechanical things I just couldn't do. ... Yeah, I'm still a little bitter about that session. I see and agree with your point. The problem as I see it is that the criteria for awarding these nuggets is left to the gm. Flatly put, my criteria is different from Stu's who's is different from ... You get the idea. So one might do the exact same thing in one game and get rewarded that they were not rewarded for in another game. The problem I have with mechanizing this is actually the same problem I have with having skills for everything in the first place. It inhibits the free form nature of role play and binds it into a nutshell. Sure it makes the game less nebulous and more "fair," but it promotes the mechanics leading sort of play such as, "I walk into a room and use my search skill I rolled a 24 what do I find?" So, what one might do, is instead of awarding these tokens for role play, give a fixed number of them out at the beginning of the session and that's how many you have to work with, period. The problem there is that it would then influence players to horde them for when they really needed them. Unfortunately there is not a clear cut solution to this problem. Cheers, JiB
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 14, 2013 16:42:52 GMT -8
This problem occurred last session in my current campaign (AD&D 1e). The former AD&D 2e player was absent and the party was trying to locate a secret door they knew existed because they had a rough map that indicated its approximate location. So they went round robin with the elves etc trying the odds in each 10ft square and failed on the dice rolls. Much looks of blankness around the table . . . So eventually I said 'what would player x (the absent one) do?' . . . Still blank . . . Then I gently prodded 'he always carries a pouch of fine sand?' (something he has often been ridiculed for). Then the penny drops . . . They get the cold ashes from the fire and dust the floor . . . The outline of the secret door in the flags is revealed . . . Lesson learnt I hope - I did qualify what happened by saying to them 'if you've got a good idea try it it will probably work without needing a single die roll, you only have to convince me by telling me . . . ' Aaron
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on May 15, 2013 5:02:50 GMT -8
This problem occurred last session in my current campaign (AD&D 1e). The former AD&D 2e player was absent and the party was trying to locate a secret door they knew existed because they had a rough map that indicated its approximate location. So they went round robin with the elves etc trying the odds in each 10ft square and failed on the dice rolls. Much looks of blankness around the table . . . So eventually I said 'what would player x (the absent one) do?' . . . Still blank . . . Then I gently prodded 'he always carries a pouch of fine sand?' (something he has often been ridiculed for). Then the penny drops . . . They get the cold ashes from the fire and dust the floor . . . The outline of the secret door in the flags is revealed . . . Lesson learnt I hope - I did qualify what happened by saying to them 'if you've got a good idea try it it will probably work without needing a single die roll, you only have to convince me by telling me . . . ' Aaron I have always taken the same position. You give me a good idea and even if the rules don't support it, it will probably work out for you. I've let all manner of things happen in games that weren't strictly speaking "by the rules" because they were awesome and made the story we were crafting amazing. Cheers, JiB
|
|