D&D: Step on Up -- but not too far up
Let's look at D&D's reward cycle for a moment. I'll focus on 3.5E as it's the most focused set of D&D rules for Gamism play to-date, but I think what I have to say will apply well to older versions of the game, where the players were concerned with Gamist things.
When a player has a Gamist Creative Agenda (CA), she is interested in the opportunity to "Step on Up," or to show the rest of the players that she can do cool things within the rules of the game. It's about winning in a fair fight, and showing off one's rules prowess. D&D 3.5E has a lot of support for this kind of play. Players plan for it in the character generation and character advancement phases between games. Players "Step on Up" during play in intense tactical battles (especially) and also in other situations where they bring their character's abilities to bear on problems. It's not about showing how cool the character is that makes it Gamism. It's showing how cool the player is. I made these choices for my character, so I'm the clever one. My character is cool because I am cool.
This is the paragraph where I dance and tiptoe a bit to convince a handful of well-meaning people that they shouldn't flame me for what I just said. I like D&D. I have played it for years. Yes, I recently stopped playing it, but not forever and not because it's a bad game. I just wasn't getting out of it what I wanted to get out of most of my role-playing experiences. Step On Up isn't what it's all about for me, and D&D 3.5E wasn't really supporting much else; in fact, sometimes it gets in the way. But it's a great game and lots of people have a blast with it all the time, and I was one of those people. Now back to the discussion.
Here's an example where the common wisdom around DMing and playing D&D doesn't quite work, and the rules have to compromise in an ugly way. The conventional wisdom is that all the characters should be about the same level. We see it in the modules that game companies produce ("suitable for 4-6 characters level 8-10") and in house rules ("if your character dies, you may create a new one at the same level of the lowest leveled surviving party member"). The rules have all participants in a combat split experience for an encounter equally. But this rubs against the grain of the main reward system of the game, experience points and leveling. A Gamist game needs a very visible score card to show everyone at the table who is Stepping Up the highest. Who is "winning"? That is, who is Gaming the best? If everyone gets the same XP just for being there, where's the reward for stepping up? If Bobbi is carrying the weight for the group in 50% of all the encounters, shouldn't Bobbi's character level quicker?
Then you'd have Bobbi's 15th level Fighter-Wizard and Adam's 7th level Rogue and Carson's 10th level Druid and Darby's 11th level Paladin. And you'd have a very frustrated DM who can't figure out how to structure play sessions without boring Bobbi or killing off the Rogue. So, Step on Up -- but not too far up -- because it doesn't pay.
I realize that what I said has it a little backwards. The players Step on Up as a reward unto itself. The XP and the level is not the end goal. It's the carrot that leads players where they wanted to go anyway. But the reward system isn't really working in full synchronicity with a player's Gamist CA. It's firing 5 of the 6 cylinders.
Here's an idea for a quick fix: At the end of every game session, vote on a Most Valuable Player. He gets an MVP point. Players can have a "friendly" competition to see who can get the most MVP points. (This is not "Nobody Gets Hurt" gaming, folks. Someone has to be the one who Steps on Up the least but theoretically, they'll work harder to improve the quality of the entire game, and everyone benefits.)
When a player has a Gamist Creative Agenda (CA), she is interested in the opportunity to "Step on Up," or to show the rest of the players that she can do cool things within the rules of the game. It's about winning in a fair fight, and showing off one's rules prowess. D&D 3.5E has a lot of support for this kind of play. Players plan for it in the character generation and character advancement phases between games. Players "Step on Up" during play in intense tactical battles (especially) and also in other situations where they bring their character's abilities to bear on problems. It's not about showing how cool the character is that makes it Gamism. It's showing how cool the player is. I made these choices for my character, so I'm the clever one. My character is cool because I am cool.
This is the paragraph where I dance and tiptoe a bit to convince a handful of well-meaning people that they shouldn't flame me for what I just said. I like D&D. I have played it for years. Yes, I recently stopped playing it, but not forever and not because it's a bad game. I just wasn't getting out of it what I wanted to get out of most of my role-playing experiences. Step On Up isn't what it's all about for me, and D&D 3.5E wasn't really supporting much else; in fact, sometimes it gets in the way. But it's a great game and lots of people have a blast with it all the time, and I was one of those people. Now back to the discussion.
Here's an example where the common wisdom around DMing and playing D&D doesn't quite work, and the rules have to compromise in an ugly way. The conventional wisdom is that all the characters should be about the same level. We see it in the modules that game companies produce ("suitable for 4-6 characters level 8-10") and in house rules ("if your character dies, you may create a new one at the same level of the lowest leveled surviving party member"). The rules have all participants in a combat split experience for an encounter equally. But this rubs against the grain of the main reward system of the game, experience points and leveling. A Gamist game needs a very visible score card to show everyone at the table who is Stepping Up the highest. Who is "winning"? That is, who is Gaming the best? If everyone gets the same XP just for being there, where's the reward for stepping up? If Bobbi is carrying the weight for the group in 50% of all the encounters, shouldn't Bobbi's character level quicker?
Then you'd have Bobbi's 15th level Fighter-Wizard and Adam's 7th level Rogue and Carson's 10th level Druid and Darby's 11th level Paladin. And you'd have a very frustrated DM who can't figure out how to structure play sessions without boring Bobbi or killing off the Rogue. So, Step on Up -- but not too far up -- because it doesn't pay.
I realize that what I said has it a little backwards. The players Step on Up as a reward unto itself. The XP and the level is not the end goal. It's the carrot that leads players where they wanted to go anyway. But the reward system isn't really working in full synchronicity with a player's Gamist CA. It's firing 5 of the 6 cylinders.
Here's an idea for a quick fix: At the end of every game session, vote on a Most Valuable Player. He gets an MVP point. Players can have a "friendly" competition to see who can get the most MVP points. (This is not "Nobody Gets Hurt" gaming, folks. Someone has to be the one who Steps on Up the least but theoretically, they'll work harder to improve the quality of the entire game, and everyone benefits.)