Do Rewards Matter?

Something of an observation.
 
Every now and then I see someone make a claim about how in-game rewards drive player behavior in RPGs. One example is the thought that giving out XP for treasure and killing monsters provides a different play experience than giving the XP only for killing monsters. The concept of 'reward what you want players to do' was one of the holy revelations of Forge gaming theory... and like they were right about so much else (Not!).

I have to admit, it does sound reasonable. Incentives are powerful motivators in many fields.

But I have my doubts. In my own gaming history we went from XP for treasure and monsters, to XP only for monsters, to XP for playing that evening. At no time did our actual play experience or gaming methods change.

I think the reason why there was no link for us, is that we really weren't playing to advance our characters. Not directly anyway. We were playing to have the adventure, and while I don't think we stopped to think about it- we realized that XP just raised the bar on what we'd be with dealing next time. In a real sense, it didn't matter. Sure having new spells or more HP is nice, but nicer was having a good time in the adventure currently being played.

Since we had a different goal, the in-game incentive didn't alter our play. And we ended up changing things only because we grew tired of calculating what the XP was.

So the advice of 'reward what you want' in game design doesn't really apply to me. And it doesn't appear in my game designs as a result. And I'm happy that way, and upon reflection realize that I likely wouldn't be happy in a group that really cared about the offered rewards.

A Gamer's Manifesto

1. I reject the fallacy that holding to a “One True Way” in gaming is an evil. Not all methods are equal, and we should strive not for the mediocrity that ‘everything is just taste’- but instead reach for and only accept the best.
2. I reject that assertion that all game designs are broken. They may not be a perfect one, but it's not difficult to get close enough for practical purposes
3. I reject the assertion that realism and simulation is impossible in game design. Again, it’s not difficult to get close enough to meet one’s needs.
4. I reject the assertion that the GM owes the players anything other than an impartial campaign that offers mysteries and excitement. Success and Failure is dependent entirely upon their skill in play, or its lack.
5. I reject the idea that GMs or RPG Design should seek to tell stories, they are games and should in themselves be fun and exciting enough that stories naturally result from play.
6. I reject rules that make decisions for the characters. Players should make decisions for their characters.
7. I reject the idea that RPGs cannot be played completely by the rules (or at worse the rules plus a reasonable amount of house rules) as written.
8. I reject the idea that playing by the Rules as Written is not role-playing. Rules are physics, Role-playing is decisions and expressions.
9. I reject the idea that GM judgment is the equal or superior of objective resolution in key areas such as combat and skill resolution.
10. The GM powers are restricted to creating the world, and ends both at the mind of the player character and the boundary of the physics engines presented by rules.
11. I reject the concept of play without the equal of a map and miniatures together with solid rules covering the elements of range, line of sight, and terrain. Any other style of play is lazy and nothing more than dependence upon GM handouts.
12. I reject the concept of 'rules getting out of the way'. RPGs are games, and the rules should engage and interest the players.

Returning to Middle Earth

We completed our trip back to Shadowrun, completing what was in effect a completely reworked adventure loosely based upon the original Shadow Run module Harlequin's Back- with no Harlequin (one of the worst NPCs in gaming history IMO), completely changed up meta-planes (after the first two) and so many other differences that really very little of he original remained. Consider the conversion to HERO System and all the other background changes I made, par for the course with SR. I really should come up with a different name for it as there's very little indeed of the original game in anything we do.

It all worked out nicely, and the SR campaign is back in the holding Parking Lot.

In its place we've turned to a period in Middle Earth of interest to one of my players. The island of Númenor at the beginning of the second millennium of the Second Age. The players want to explore the far reaches of Middle Earth as members of the greatest empire the world has ever seen. The setting presents a number of challenges as it's more magic rich than later eras and very little official background exists.

I'm expecting it to be a blast. Assuming that they don't all die, which judging from the last couple of adventures is all too likely. And assuming that the minor (and less capable actually) characters of the ship's crew don't keep showing them up like they have been.

Ah the joys of gaming.

RPGs and Markets, and the effect on Play

There are two types of gaming groups. Those that notice that they can make more money by the relatively safe method of stealing and fencing cars in Shadowrun than they can by running those very risky missions, and those that don't. Those that don't are easier on campaigns, but they also give me the impression that they're very tunneled vision- basically ignoring the world their characters exist in.
 
But let's talk about the first type. Put in other terms, these are the people who take notice of the in-game markets. What sells for what, how easy the item in question is to acquire, and the comparative risks involved.

All nice and well, except for the fact that such attention can derail the intent of the campaign from its original intent. One wonders for example if Luke would have been all fired up to leave Tatooine if the family business was actually making huge sums of money, or if he could have become rich by blasting wamp rats. With the right return, perhaps Luke would have ended up as rich as Jabba with his own slave girls- and the Empire would have crushed the rebellion.

Games often insert such alternative goals by setting prices for certain things very high in comparison to the desired game activity. Be it the value of cars in Shadowrun, or for example the price of herbs in ICE Middle Earth Role-Playing Game (MERP).

The later example is actually the one that sparked this post. Herbs in MERP could run hundreds of gold per dose. The intent seemed simple, make healing herbs (magical in their effectiveness) expensive and thus a drain on player resources. The actual result is entire game sessions where players forge for herbs to sell in order to finance both their own herb usage and whatever else they think they need. And given that ICE price lists are generally silver based and not gold- this is very wise thing to do indeed.

The correct approach to such things is to price items and services in the setting to match the desired play activity. Shadowrun missions should return more than the fence value of cars for example. The selling price of foraged Healing Herbs should offer a lesser return than adventuring.

There are two ways of achieving this end.

You can up the return on adventuring, but aware that his might spark widespread inflation (although that inflation will met your goal in this respect). Typically the better way is to reduce the price of the unbalancing activity. Yes herbs are useful, but maybe hundreds of gold for something that can be found with a few days foraging by a skilled character is too much even so. Maybe Shadowrun cars are overpriced compared to the much more sophisticated Cyperware and Magical formulas in the setting.

Perhaps the goal is best reached by increasing some things (adventure return) and decreasing others (cost of herbs and cars) as the same time.

Remember however that the adventures side of the question often has non-monetary returns. Those count as well on the final 'player balance sheet' and should be kept in mind. Everything in the end must take into account the mindset of your players as they will have different thresholds.

Skyfall- Cheering a Failure

Went to see the latest James Bond film.

Great actions scenes, wonderful music, exotic locations, over the top villains. All the cool elements of a Bond film with an excellent leading actor able to put off the image with more depth than any of the previous incarnations (although Brosnan had some weight on that scale). The newer darker and grittier tone has improved things greatly over the older films which with few exceptions come across as nearly camp in comparison. Plus there was some really cute nods to previous movies throughout the movie.

It was actually rather enjoyable.

But after a bit thought after walking out of the theater, I ended up not liking the film which is basically my reaction to all the Bond moves (with the 2006 Casino Royale being the exception).

I don't see misogyny in everything. But Bond movies are perhaps the most misogynistic film series of all time, While things have improved over the years, it’s still nothing to brag about. Of the three significant female characters in the new movie, two are killed and one proves (and accepts) herself unsuited for field work. The role of the Bond girl is a rather demeaning one consisting of a one-night stand followed mostly by death or (if they’re lucky)  irrelevance.

Meanwhile Bond himself is something of a failed hero in many of the movies, an almost Adam West Batman approach to spy craft. Not able to really investigate anything; his SOP is to get captured by the bad guy, have the bad buy spell his guts to him revealing everything, and then turn the table through an amazing action scene. It’s the power-gamer/ munchkin version of a successful Spy, buy up your combat and vehicle skills and push the win button when you get to the combat map.

Except Bond rarely wins, at least in the terms I would set for a hero. He consistently fails to save the damsel in distress (deciding instead to take advantage of her), and often ends up causing their death or the death of his fellow agents/allies. In Skyfall (spoiler warning for the following) he’s set five major tasks that I picked up on watching the movie for the first time:

• Stop the theft of a list of fellow spies (and thus prevent any of them from dying). Result: Failure. List is stolen, at least one fellow agent is killed as a result.

• Find the data thief, find out who he’s working for, and then kill him. Result: Mostly Failure. Kills him first gaining no information and thus no cookie. This is recovered solely because the bad guy put his payment chip in his assassin gear kit (you know, the heavy case that you might have to abandon if things go south) and not in his pocket or perhaps a safety deposit box somewhere. BTW, he allows the thief to kill some guy (heaven only knows who he was) before moving against him although he was nearly within arm's reach when the trigger was pulled. Makes me wonder of Bond just likes watching bystanders die or something.

• Help the wounded dove (the plaything of the villain) and use her to learn about the villain. Results: Failure. The wounded dove is killed instead of helped, and tells him basically nothing along the way. This is recovered only because the villain captures him and tells him nearly everything personally- because that's the villain's plan in the first place.

• Capture the major villain. Result: Failure, he succeeds only because the villain wanted to be captured.

• Protect M and defeat villain. Result: Abject Failure. Bond kills a villain who wanted to die anyway, and M is still killed (although she dies after the villain does and Bond does manage to spite the villain a little as a result). Along the way he also loses his original car (the Aston Martin I believe) and his family home is burned to the ground (although he claims he hated the place anyway).

If this had been a game, and I was running Bond- I would have considered the adventure to be a bust, mostly as a result of my own stupidity (although Q shares some blame, really who in their right mind would hook up a villains computer to your entire secured network controlling everything instead of using an isolated computer forensics and hacking setup).

And yet, the Bond series is the most successful of all time and this movie is getting excellent reviews. Perhaps it appeals to the inner Munchkin of the typical fan. Or perhaps I really shouldn't expect more than great action scenes.

Whatever the case, I'm clearly out of step with the moving going public.

Returning to Shadowrun

A sort of where we are in our gaming post.

We finished our experiment with Claymore ending the campaign on a up note with the founding of the city of Rabona. Lots of fun and it showed that Age of Heroes can manage superheroic level games rather well- as long as it's superheroic swordsmen that is. It was in many ways one of the darker campaigns I ever played in, not from the character actions as such but in the way a shadow of doom hung over them. It was fun for single series of adventures, but not something I'd like to do all the time.

After some sorting and voting the group decided to return to our unfinished Shadowrun campaign, although that's a misleading label. It's a similar setting stealing names, places and ideas from the published setting- but really it's completely reworked and I think most players of the official setting would think it's a different type of game completely. In addition we're using HERO System instead of the published game system.

HERO 5th edition at that. We used 6th edition for a campaign before, but it never felt right to anyone due to the lack of support for traditional maps and minis playing (meaning you had to covert everything when you referenced the book). And none of the 6th edition changes were actually helpful. So it's back to the version that worked for us.

Age of Heroes 5.0 Errata

Last Updated: 02-04-2012


The Errata has been moved to a PDF file located here.

What is Age of Heroes

Age of Heroes is homegrown set rules for table-top fantasy role-playing designed for my gaming groups. It was available in a very incomplete form for free download around the turn of the century, and most recently a completed version at Lulu in hardcover.

The latest version is 5.0.4, available at Lulu.

Interested in a review? The most recent one for version 5.0.2 is found at The Bedrock Blog.

Age of Heroes Now Available

Ok, it's finally finished, up on Lulu and available to anyone willing to spend a few bucks on it.

What do you get for your $25 plus shipping?

The core rules (complete enough for a beginning campaign) for a fantasy setting of your choice. These home grown rules have been in continuous play for 32 years now (hence the 5.0 version label on the cover).

This is a 80s style RPG with some rather uncommon features:

1. The game play focus is on maneuver rather than the more common resource management.
2. That focus allows mixed level adventurers to an extent almost unheard of. This in turn allows for Generational Campaigns when one's own offsprings might adventure with their parents.
3. Balanced armor and weapons selection making the choice of what to use a matter of style instead of effectiveness.
4. A somewhat open Class/Level system that allows for great variety creating characters while still protecting classic fantasy niches
5. A unique advancement system that avoids endless power growth while encouraging mixed level adventuring.
6. Combat is similar in some ways to BRP, but is more scalable and with greater options.

Age of Heroes uses d100 as it's core resolution mechanic, and the full range of polyhedral dice for damage.

I've also made available a 6 page GM Screen PDF to use with game. I use it with the Savage Worlds Customizable GM Screen to wonderful effect nearly completely eliminating page flipping during games.

Also available is a basic character sheet (also a PDF).

The 80s, The Golden Age of RPG Design

I loved the 80s, the music and games at least.

Most 80s RPGs were driven by a simple goal- to be less abstract and more true to the source materials than D&D. In short, to be more realistic and/or faithful. A movement in game design that actually started earlier than 80s with games like RuneQuest (78) and Traveller (77) but reached its apex with systems like Champions (81) and GURPS (86).

Along the way there were dozens of games- Twilight 2000, Morrow Project, Aftermath, etc.

While RuneQuest was mostly just different from D&D, as the 80s progressed the style grew to embrace more complex and detailed rules (if with far fewer exceptions and special cases than D&D). A growth D&D mirrored, but the key difference was still realism and/or faithfulness.

What was interesting about these games, is what the designer thought was realistic or faithful. Aftermath had an very detailed hit location system for example. Champions a very dynamic Superhero Combat System, and Morrow Project highly detailed equipment rules. It seemed that like the blind men with the elephant, each designer was fixated on their own interest and it was those interests that would be modeled in their rules.

And that was a pure joy, never since have we seen such vast differences in game design or such a wealth of materal to pick and choose from. To me, it was truly the Golden Age of game design.

80s Game Characteristics:

• High Page Count
• Rules with little fluff or background in comparison
• Focus on wargame like conflict resolution, story and the larger world were left to be creations of the GM and players
• The search for realism or faithful recreation of source materials
• Extreme variety in subsystems depending upon the designer's goals
• Wide Ranging Experimentation

The Most Important Danger of Writing Home Grown Rules

It's so silly, it's almost comical.

It's typical with home grown rules that they grown over time, and are adapted to to the groups style. When it comes time to transfer those to something that at least attempts to approach a professional rulebook for whatever reason, that degree of familarity (gained in some cases over decades) can result in very odd results.

For example, I just realized this week that my play test copy says nothing about cover and hit locations. I only found out because I used the concept as example of abstraction when replying to a comment here on this blog.

Sigh.

The actual rule isn't complex, more common sense based. And that's why it missed everyone's notice. They just apply it and go on. These are the types of things that sneak by, leaving people reading your rules wondering how it's actually played.

This one I caught, but I wonder how many I've missed. Still, perfection is the goal- not a real outcome in these things. One tries and sees what happens.

Blind play test groups are ideal for these sort of things. But not something a home grown rule designer really has access to.


In any case, there's one thing for certain. I doubt the primary target for the rules (i.e. my existing groups and off shoots) will notice the failings.

And a bit of a Update

Due to some health problems, it's been a while. But I'm still around. Let's get caught up some.

The play tests for Age of Heroes are going well, if a bit slower than I wanted due to Real Life (tm). But I'm still hoping to do a general release (with little fan fair) next month. My play testers and primary rule reviewer may disagree, and I hold their opinion in great worth, so we'll see.

The play tests are fun, when questions come up I can tell people to go to page x, and the answer is there. Nothing like a real copy of homegrown rules.



In the wider world of the gaming hobby, WotC has made a splash online with their coming 5th edition together with other moves. I talked about this back in Sept, and have nothing new to add. We'll see how it goes.

Moral Confusion- Like RPGs, Like MMORPGs

I've spent the last few days playing Star Wars: The Old Republic (TOR). I'm about half way to the level cap. So far- fun game play, does a good job making your character look heroic (at least compared to other RPGs), and the 'all voice interaction' pulls you into storie lines many would likely pass over if they were given in the tradition text.

But like too many modern RPG gamers, the developers of TOR are in need of a moral compass. Here's some of the stuff I've ran into playing a Jedi Knight on the 'good' side after visiting but three worlds...

You get Light Side (i.e. good guy points, determined and awarded based upon decisions you make in the game's conversation trees) for the following:

1. Aiding uniformed soldiers of the republic in an clear act of desertion. Things are bad you see, and well... things are bad you see. As for the civilians these guys were supposed to be guarding, wish them good luck, hope they die before being eaten alive.
2. Thief from a corporation. They sent an entire research team, paid for all the equipment and manpower for a multiple year project- and you basically decide that they don't deserve a return on their money (or even breakeven) because 'medicine should be for everyone' and they would... what? Charge a market price thus giving them a excellent reason to get it out on the market to be brought? Instead the Jedi will deal with it, as if they have time given that the best they can do is send one guy out to deal with the worst things in ages (i.e. you)...  good luck with that.
3. Love is bad, leads to the Dark Side you know. Lucas had a real miss of a divorce he wrote Love == Evil into the setting for the prequels as some sort of payback.
4. Thief of Government Supplies. Seems that the Republic doesn't have enough medical supplies to deal with their own injuries and the civilian population as well. Rather than working out a sharing plan, or pulling Jedi strings to get more aid sent, or just paying for the supplies yourself- you steal from the military and give all of it to the civilians because there are kids involved. I wonder how many soldiers sent to defend those same civilians died? I wound how many more kids die because their wasn't enough troops to defend them?
5. Assist a Jedi AI to train evil force wielders who freaking eat people... because some day they'll learn better if the AI keeps working at it. Might take uncounted years, but the AI will live long enough (yes, it say this in the game). Meanwhile all those people getting eaten? Tough Luck. But you were tasty.

Now you can disgree with some of the above (sometimes it doesn't make a different in the story however). But you'll get Dark Side points for doing so.

Often the game is basically a Left-Wing nut case day dream. With sometimes veiled (sometimes not) shots against:

• Israel, just share the land stupid and it wil all work out.
• The military, when they're not running refugees through mine fields for kicks- they're skimming supplies to live high on the hog (remember, this is the Republic I'm talking about) and ignoring the basics of COIN operations (i.e. help your friendly civilians).
• Corporations (making money is evil and heartless)

Sometimes it doesn't think there are good guys. The Government is corrupt in almost every dealing you have with it. And that's the good guys again... one almost thinks the Empire is better- at least they're honest about their evil.

Sometimes it's just confused. The monsters are thinking creatures is a constant theme so far, "all we need do is talk to them... old, go kill 40 of them for the following rewards.."


Such a nice game (game play and visuals). Such a lack of ethical and moral sense. And such a hate on for the Republic.

Lang's Rules and Age of Heroes

Last time I mentioned that Rob Lang was running a series of articles with suggestions (let's call them Rules, because it's easier to argue about rules than it is suggestions) for writing your own RPG. Very worthwhile articles they are.

I thought it would be fun to compare the development of my own Age of Heroes game with what's there. It will go a long ways to explaining why I expect to sell a dozen copies and those who follow Rob's Rules will sell... well more. Rob is free to comment on whatever I say here...


His first article was a Prologue defining his intent, Not many rules here, in fact only one. If you've played an RPG you're ready to design one. I'm hitting 100% so far, Age of Heroes was started after a number of years of gaming.

Chapter 1: Inspiration
 
Age of Heroes is doing well through this chapter. It was a design intended to more faithfully recreate various source fantasy works (all listed in its appendices) more faithfully than any of RPG published back then while providing niche protection, combat style balance, generational campaigns while providing highly tactical play along the way...

Oh wait. That isn't true. That's what it ended up being.

The truth is that it was basically a house rule replacement combat system, followed by a house rule replacement magic system, followed by a house rule character generation system, followed by...

In short it grew on its own and suddenly (one remembered day) became a its own game (IT LIVES!). There was no planing for the game as *whole* until perhaps a decade later.

However each individual section did in fact follow much of what's in the Chapter 1 article, but with a very narrow focus. It has however never been pitched, and I don't think it's possible to describe it in five words.

Result: Age of Heroes mix success


Chapter2: Research is better.

A huge amount of research was done with respect to the original source materials. And I was very familiar with basically *all* the games of the era for the simple reason that there wasn't that many. Some sections of the rules were based upon the real world, and that required its own research.

However at the time research was much harder, some things assumed weren't really true. Thus the game includes armor types that are more 'what's expected in an RPG' than 'Real'. But I'm giving that a pass since it's a fantasy game created in a era of more difficult research restraints

Result: Age of Heroes flawless victory


Chapter 3: Writing and Style

Now we're completely off the rails. In part because I'm a terrible writer, and in part because it was a the piecemeal design I spoke about above.

I almost did none of this 'right'. I have extensive Design Notes in the appendix. My pose sucks.The thing is a freaking textbook (if only a 262 page textbook). Optional Rules are just presented, it's explained why you'd want to use them (and why you wouldn't). I've lost track of the number of Rob's Rules I've broken here.

I did keep copies of basically everything written, there are examples- but not enough.

Most people who see it scream, drop the book and flee rapidly.

But my groups and I still love it. So goal achieved. Everyone else can just jump off some bridge somewhere.

Result: Age of Heroes utter failure



Chapter 4: Setting

Did this completely wrong too. The game doesn't include any setting. The bestiary is a good place for hints as to what it's aimed at (as are the Designer Notes), but the system is made to be a generic fantasy RPG, and intended to be paired with a campaign supplement.

Basically the same approach as GURPS and HERO. The problem here is that such an approach doesn't work now days. People don't want generic rules, they can't deal with them. They want setting first.

Result: Age of Heroes utter failure


So that means that of the 4 chapters I'm batting 50% + 100% + 0% + 0% or a total of 37.5%

Not bad for baseball, rather rotten here I think.

Rob of course is still writing the series, and I'll keep pace to find out my final score.

Happy New Year

It's now 2012, and while the more curmudgeonly of us would like it to be last year of the world (the 2012 stuff is the most fun of all the doomsdays I've lived through in a number of ways)- somehow I doubt that we'll be let off that easy.

That being the case, here's what I see coming for the new year that's worth noting...


Writing Your Own RPG

Rob Lang is doing a wonderful series about writing your own RPG. He started last year, but will finish it this one. Rather good stuff. Maybe someone will fly with it and do a good game- instead of just more of the same that we're being flooded with of late.


Age of Heroes Update

Age of Heroes 5.0 is moving along in play test. It was pointed out that I missed a couple of Hero Abilities in this version (likely the result of a bad cut and paste attempt). Putting those back in caused me to add a dozen new ones and up the page count to 262.

Oddly enough due to space limits, I still have one left over and am trying to decide what to do with it.

It's just about the only 'meta-game' ability I put in the game, i.e. one that doesn't so much expand a character's in-game abilities as it simulates more of a 'plot altering' ability. That actually makes me want to leave it out, but it has some fans in my gaming circle.

Either way, I'm not willing to give it's own page just to include it, so it will have to come with some other stuff. Perhaps I could add a section on meta-game abilities, toss in some advice about them, and label it optional...

I want some more play testing, but it's still on target for a final draft in March. I'll offer it on Lulu in print form for a while and let people know about on this blog.

I imagine that I'll  finish the Claymore campaign Supplement for Age of Heroes at about the same time. Since it has tons of art and concepts that I have no license for, it really won't be going anywhere and is basically only for personal use. Pity in a way, it's rather cool even if I have to say so myself.


Next up for me is the Magic Expansion and a Modern Expansion. I doubt either will be finished in the coming year however.

HERO System

Yeah, it's dead. Killed by the failure of 6th edition. So I repeat my hope that someone buys it and does cool things with it.


Other Stuff

Frankly, I don't see much in the RPG industry that interests me. Not interested in a 5th edition of D&D, the OSR leaves me cold, couldn't care less about all the FATE based systems.

The past few years has taught me that that the hobby is very zombie like, decaying and not a fresh idea in sight. Maybe 2012 will change that. Maybe it won't.