Rewards for roleplay!



  • edited March 2015
    Luke Crane is the perfect example of a design-through-(mechanical-)reward designer, but I dunno ... the lack of understanding of how games work, that you shown right here in the last five posts, will make me withdraw from this thread.
    Why do you have to be so rude to people Rickard? It seems like you think anyone who doesn't share your assumptions or views you just dismiss an idiot or as not understanding.

  • I brought up Crane so it might be me. Thanks for giving us at least something, Rickard. Hopefully we can mature in our view and understanding about game design in the future.
  • Extrinsic rewards as *motivator* = bad

    Extrinsic rewards as *organizing principle* = good
  • It's every one of us at some point or another, Airk. Don't take it personally.

    What does "You can't gamify a game" refer to? Knowing Luke, I assume he means, "You shouldn't make a game first and then slap extra systems onto it afterward," but not having been there, this could be a discussion about how mechanical rewards don't matter if social rewards are already in place, for all I know.
  • The lecture I referred to is on the tube, it's called something like (this is from memory) Why RPGs are Awesome, Luke Crane Ropecon 2014. There are three separate Luke lectures from that event so pick the right one.
    If I remember the context correctly, Luke objected more to the use of the term in that context.
  • Oh, right, the trend in online advertising/marketing/etc. to attempt, or claim to attempt, "gamifying".
  • Oh, right, the trend in online advertising/marketing/etc. to attempt, or claim to attempt, "gamifying".
    Yeah, I think (at least in the PAX East statement) he meant it pretty literally - as in "You can't artificially add game elements to a game." or "You can't take a game and make a game out of it."; Presumably because it already has game elements and already IS a game.

    It's akin to saying "You can't make water wet."
  • Yeah, that's a good explanation of how I also interpreted what he said.
  • edited March 2015
    Can I add more game to my game?
    To answer this question:
  • Can I add more game to my game?

    When I tag you, you're "it." Now you need to tag me.

    ...But first count to ten... ...and this area is "home"... and you can't block people coming in or out of "home"... ...and you need to shout "You're it" when you tag someone...
    Of course! That's the bulk of game design. Those sorts of constraints on how you're allowed to play are both (a) definitional to games in many academic and professional circles, and (b) clearly the reason why people play some games over others. Tons of people like football and tons of people like basketball and virtually nobody likes "get the ball across the field" -- they want "more game" than just that.

    Unfortunately, as you can tell from Rickard's last response, "add more game" is a hot-button phrase to some people, who will get visions of skinner boxes and stop reading the actual content of your post when they see it.

    I've heard "more game" used to mean:
    - more rules
    - more formalized procedures
    - more strategy
    - more mental demands (memory, odds calculation, quickly synthesizing vast info, etc.)
    - more physical components (tokens, counters, meeples, action cards, etc.)

    So you'd probably do better with "more traction", "more constraint", "more system", "more crunch", "more designed play" or something else for discussion purposes.
  • Thanks for the thoughts. I was being a little facetious but interesting reading springs forth anyway. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.