[Theory] Reward Systems -- A Look at Experience Points and Advancement

[adamdray]

I had a discussion with some FiranMUX players about reward systems in gaming. There's also a Story Games thread brilliantly titled "The reward cycle - who else doesn't give a shit?" that addresses some of the same topics. I had some thoughts about the purpose of reward systems in a lot of games and wanted to share

Comments

[selentic]

This is a great exploration of D&D's troublesome reward system

[adamdray]

Completing quests as the reward cycle works, sorta. The problem is that the rewards come too few and far between this way. I should have said something about this in the original post

[yeloson]

I always figured the key to rewarding with Quests was:

a) either breaking down rewards to check points

b) Layering -LOTS- of quests together, so that players are always finishing up something or other and getting points while progressing on the others.

[selentic]

That layering sounds like an idea well worth trying to work with!

I like checkpoints, and i think i've used something like that in the past with Iron Heroes.

[gbsteve]

Dammit, now you've quoted me I'll have to read the whole bloody thing.

[adamdray]

Haha. It's how I guarantee at least one person will read it.

[gbsteve]

Well, it's a cogent argument.

"The player cannot spend XP to make his rogue taller without something happening in the story that makes sense of that change." That's the kind of reward I like, something that's coherent with the fiction and something that makes sense from the character POV as well as the player's.

I ran Over The Edge which has a large grained system. You're better off without XPs because changes tend to be in large steps that unbalance the relationships between the characters, and between the characters and the NPCs (the same thing happens in D&D too which is why the King has to be PC level+6, just to stay in charge).

Instead, I used the cards from the CCG On the Edge. When a player got an ally, they got the card for that character. It was much stronger than just saying that he was now their pal and didn't break the fiction.

[adamdray]

If you're concerned about pacing, D&D's XP system is a dial. That is, you can multiple all XP awards by a fixed number throughout play to speed things up. Give the players 5 times the normal XP and characters will level 5 times faster... but XP will still matter and you will not have changed the kinds of things that players must do to earn them.

The point to fighting monsters in D&D is often "to stay alive." It's easy to forget that the D&D setting -- amplified in 4E -- is extremely dangerous. A player can't even keep his PCs safe at home; adventure always seems to find them.

I'm looking forward to playing in your stakes-setting D&D thing, too. Have you considered just modifying the quest system to have explicit stakes?

[selentic]

My thoughts on this ran a little long, so i put it over here on my lj.

[greyorm]

Every so often, when it made sense to the group, everyone would gain a level.

I've actually played in a game where this was how it worked -- that game is also my current exemplar of what I do not want in gaming. It was D&D...without advancement. Which made it one of the most painful and often pointless D&D games I've ever experienced.

[eyebeams]

For example, in D&D there are rules for improving a character's combat and spellcasting abilities, but there are no rules for gaining allies or earning one's own kingdom. This is not a criticism of D&D, which is designed carefully to do what it does (combat and spellcasting), and not to do other things (social relationships and kingdom building).There have been rules for these in most editions of D&D (particularly in BECMI), and probably will be for 4th, because the publishing model is designed to expand sideways like this. Keep in mind that this isn't in the rules yet because it's been less popular than everything else you do. This wasn't as true in the 70s and early 80s (when characters were expected to use assistants) but it's a given now