How can we incentivize IC failure?

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

They are not being used. Most players don't roll in social encounters unless there's some kind of pivotal moment, usually around conflict. That's pretty rare. They do get used in PrPs when prompted by a GM but of course that, too, is biased toward those with access to such scenes.

Totally agree, but I don't see that as a problem. My games always contain this guidance:

Well it is a problem if the game runners assume their players are +rolling on a regular basis, and distribute XP based on that assumption.

Similarly when it comes to incentivizing failure, a lot of the scenarios leading to it cannot be summed down to a single roll of the dice. If the Council votes against your IC interests (which they do based on individual scenes leading up to it, the voters' private IC motivations, political maneuvering etc) what is the roll going to be?

[Lotherio]

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

They are not being used. Most players don't roll in social encounters unless there's some kind of pivotal moment, usually around conflict. That's pretty rare. They do get used in PrPs when prompted by a GM but of course that, too, is biased toward those with access to such scenes.

Totally agree, but I don't see that as a problem. My games always contain this guidance:

Well it is a problem if the game runners assume their players are +rolling on a regular basis, and distribute XP based on that assumption.

This is a bit of a difference. For time-based XP rewards, the assumption isn't that players are even +rolling. The assumption that between RP sessions, characters are smart enough to do their own training/knowledge seeking/self improvement. Just because Player A can log on daily and pose bench pressing to get a strength increase at some point, doesn't mean Player B that only logs on once every two weeks is completely avoiding training. Even if folks only bar-RP, the character isn't a lush who sits at the bar all day (funny as that may be and some of us have played chars this way), they go out and pursue their interests off-camera. MUSH vs MUD, you don't have to do the menial stuff on MUSH, its assumed off camera.

ETA: In the time based XP/equal distribution, losing still has gains by still getting 'better' as a character/set of numbers.

Similarly when it comes to incentivizing failure, a lot of the scenarios leading to it cannot be summed down to a single roll of the dice. If the Council votes against your IC interests (which they do based on individual scenes leading up to it, the voters' private IC motivations, political maneuvering etc) what is the roll going to be?

This on the other hand gets at the heart of your initial question , incentives that aren't just XP handouts but are rewarding for all. How does one get their title reward when failing if it can't be summed down to a single roll. How is it rewarded and how do the failures get some incentive when only one person gets the reward in the end? I think some consensus (not all) is that it can't just be a XP bonus to the failing folks but needs to be more substantive story wise (and supported OOCly by the community in some aspect to give it more meaning)?

[Devrex]

I don't know, I am not sure you can "systemize" the incentivization. To a degree you can...I have found I am happy to take my beat in exchange for critical failures on a CoD game...but...my trust for the GM or player across from me and how they will handle that failure makes a huge difference in how happy I am to take the licks. When I'm playing with people I trust making a better story is usually enough regardless of what it does to the numbers. And when I'm not, no amount of number finagling or XP award makes a huge difference. There's a lot that is actually packed into the "trust" bit, but I won't write that essay here. The primary point here is that the incentivization is ultimately a matter of building and growing relationships. Which is hard to do. It's impossible to quantify. And there's no guaranteed system you can implement to build a culture that will foster it. You can lead by example, but that's about all you can do.

[Ganymede]

@devrex said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

You can lead by example, but that's about all you can do.

That's pretty much what I'm thinking.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

Well it is a problem if the game runners assume their players are +rolling on a regular basis, and distribute XP based on that assumption.

Sure, but that's one (of many) reasons to not do it that way. The others being the fact that it's easily exploited, that it incentivizes roll-play, and that it runs counter to how most people fundamentally interact with the game.

Similarly when it comes to incentivizing failure, a lot of the scenarios leading to it cannot be summed down to a single roll of the dice. If the Council votes against your IC interests (which they do based on individual scenes leading up to it, the voters' private IC motivations, political maneuvering etc) what is the roll going to be?

I think "what is the roll going to be" is the wrong question. It's coming at it from the assumption that there will/should be a roll involved. It's better IMHO to ask what would be gained by rolling? Does it serve the story? Does it even make sense to roll, or has the PC not even put in the baseline amount of RP/work to make such a thing feasible.

It comes down to what you believe the purpose of rolling is. There are certainly some who just flat-out like the element of randomness it brings. Personally I don't subscribe to that. A world where Han Solo could meet his end tripping on a flight of stairs because he failed a Dex check is not a world I want to RP in.

[Lotherio]

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

Han Solo could meet his end tripping on a flight of stairs because he failed a Dex check is not a world I want to RP in.

Not that its relevant to the conversation but in the original D6 system for Star wars, this wouldn't be possible. The dice pool system then, like a few others, was a total of all dice rolled vs the WoD version (each dice that totals X number is a success). In the D6 version, it would be an easy task, Han Solo had a dice pool of 3d6+1. Stairs would be too simple to assign a DC too, but giving it say, its missing a step, its still easy for most people to do this so very easy difficulty would be 1 to 5 as assigned by a gm. Han would qualify for an automatic 4 on his dice pool and wouldn't need to roll unless the difficulty became sufficient to become a challenge (stairs are open over a ravine, missing a stair, and some storm troopers are shooting at him from one side as he tries to escape them). Unlike WoD, where each die needs to be X number to net a success, or all dice lower than X number is a failure (I think the rules somewhere point out an easy thing or something reasonable for the char to pass doens't need to be rolled).

Maybe this gets into system incentivizing, where reasonable tasks are assumed to succeed (playing up to everyone winning)? Establishing reasonable tasks that don't require rolls per say. Then the thing that becomes more a consideration is when two players get together they get into competitive situations to get to the excitement of dice rolling, whether its arm wrestling, playing darts, writing songs, or stacking crackers, they want to roll a few dice for random determination to see something happen that isn't predetermined. Reasonably, if John has a high dex and Ted has a low one, John should win darts 9 out of 10 times, but bring in RNG and Ted might win more than expected.

Sorry, spammy, just putting out thoughts on this is all.

ETA: On the Han vs stairs roll, even if he failed, I'd imagine some GMs would allow a second dex roll to grab something before plunging to make it more exciting. So they fail, but their decent dex has a chance to make it not a total failure. Instead, it puts the rest of the party into a situation to pull him up before a storm trooper blasts him ala Han getting Lando from the Sarlacc pitt with the pike - a great story part from a few successive failures that gets them in a dire situation.

[Devrex]

@lotherio Yeah, I often don't call for a roll unless the PCs are crunched for time.

Can the thief pick the lock? He's got the skills. Probably. Inevitably, if there's nobody shooting at him, if he doesn't need to get into the door in this round to avoid getting caught, if he isn't trying to escape a prison cell before the next guard rotation.

If he is? Then yeah, need a roll to find out if he's got the chops to get out of there clean and smooth or if he's on to his next problem; having his back to this super locked door when three armed men show up to say, "Well, well, what have we here."

[Arkandel]

What's very interesting to me is how split people's opinions are while discussing IC failure.

Several people for example try to solve this issue through mechanics. "When you fail a +roll this is how I'd reward that failure".

Then several others are specifically pointing out they don't use rolls in social settings, they don't like using rolls even in plots for things their characters are supposed to be good at, and roll rarely otherwise.

There's a gap here I'm not sure is being bridged.

[Ganymede]

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

There's a gap here I'm not sure is being bridged.

I don't think there's a gap in all responses, especially mine.

We are talking about two things, though. Some of us are discussing whether there are mechanics that can reward failure or reward players for voluntarily failing. Others are discussing whether there can or should be rewards for failures decided by staff/GMs. Some are talking about both.

But the overarching issue is how to convince players that failure is not only possible, but possibly rewarding in its own right. Mechanics that reward failure or ameliorate failure mean nothing if the players still react negatively to failure. So, for me, and some others, this is a culture issue, one that is not going to be solved by mechanics or policy or without staff and players willing to buy in.

[faraday]

@ganymede said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

But the overarching issue is how to convince players that failure is not only possible, but possibly rewarding in its own right.

I think an even more arching issue is whether failure is really a goal to strive for in the first place. What is the problem that we're trying to solve here?

Imagine trying to apply that logic to any other kind of game: "OK, baseball/Fortnite/chess/Skyrim players, we need you to try to figure out how to lose more."

You'd get odd looks, right?

I'll throw out a tangential proposition that we don't actually want people to "lose more"; we just want them to not pout if things don't go their way. To not hog the spotlight out of some constant need to be the center of attention. To not throw a tantrum if somebody else gets something they wanted.

In short, we want players who show good sportsmanship. I don't think bribing them for tanking +rolls is the way to accomplish that goal.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

In short, we want players who show good sportsmanship. I don't think bribing them for tanking +rolls is the way to accomplish that goal.

I concur in part and dissent in part.

Yes, what I am saying is that we need to promote good sportsmanship in the face of defeat; however, I am a proponent for incentivizing failure as a plot device or an element of player agency. This can have some beneficial effects. For example, in the Chronicles of Darkness, a player can surrender to a beatdown in exchange for a small XP reward; aside from the benefit to the player's character, it is also a benefit to the GM whose NPC initiates the beatdown because it saves a lot of dice-throwing. The same system also allows you to take a negative Condition (which results in future penalties) in exchange for an immediate benefit (the removal of Doors) in a social interaction. This idea of allowing a player to choose a negative in order to get a positive is a very underrated part of the system as a whole that in practice makes running a game so much easier once players buy into it.

So, I don't think that we're talking about bribes; I am, at least, trying to suggest that providing options to players may get them to accept the give-and-take that should exist in a good game session. That said, I can see how a person could consider a reward-for-surrender system as a bribe-to-tank.

[faraday]

@ganymede said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

For example, in the Chronicles of Darkness, a player can surrender to a beatdown in exchange for a small XP reward; aside from the benefit to the player's character, it is also a benefit to the GM whose NPC initiates the beatdown because it saves a lot of dice-throwing.

I can see that. All I'm suggesting is that there may be value in flipping the question on its head and challenging some of the basic assumptions. Why is the beatdown happening in the first place? Why does it necessitate a ton of dice-throwing to resolve? What is gained for the story if the players lose versus win?

You could try to incentivize it with XP, sure, but you could also just communicate with the players and say: "So for the story I have in mind, the NPC would give you a beatdown and then... (as vague or specific as you wish to convince them)..." and it becomes more of a negotiation than a systemic reward. There's no right or wrong here, just different ways of looking at it.

[Devrex]

@faraday Well I think the idea is that nobody would go to a movie where the main character wins every interaction. So what I think we're grasping for is "how can we tell better stories," how can we do a lot more "yes, but" and "no, and" and "no, but" when what many players mostly want is "yes, and also yes."

The question may be less about failure and more about "how can we get players to feel safe enough to engage in the ups and downs that will allow us to tell richer stories."

But not everyone is there for the same thing. I was shocked to realize a whole swath of players don't really give a fig about telling stories, they're after something else. So you're just not going to create a universal solution here. You can offer tools, you can set an example, you can find your people who like telling the same sorts of stories you like telling, but you're not going to get a pure wish fulfillment player to enjoy taking the beat down or to want to, you're not going to get the pure relationship-RP player to even want to go disarm the bomb in the first place or pay attention to it.

It's sort of like...uh...well the best analogy I can come up with is running a daycare. You can set up a bunch of stations and put a bunch of toys on the floor and the kids are going to run and go play with what suits them. You might love coaching kids through art projects, but there is no art-project method you can employ to make the kid who only wants to play with the fake food day in and day out come over and try out the tempura paint, and if you try to make that kid do that the kid is going to complain bitterly the entire time that they're being made to do something that's not fun. You might as well just let that kid enjoy their fake food bliss, keep an eye on them, and then go right on running the art lesson.

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

I think an even more arching issue is whether failure is really a goal to strive for in the first place. What is the problem that we're trying to solve here?

The way I see it the problem we are really trying to solve here is that, unlike table-top or video games, on a MU* there islimited access to desired venues, achievements or outcomes.

Some examples:

• In table-top you are never out of the group. But in a MU* access to structured plots varies.
• In a video game your character is special by default - in Skyrim you are the Dragonborn. On a MU* you're not special by default (or rather 'everyone is special').
• In table-top and video games you get to participate in all meaningful encounters. You want to face Arthas, the Lich King? You got it, baby! On a MU* you may never be in the same room as the Big Bad.
• In table-top access to your friends isn't compromised by failure. Even if your character dies in a campaign the DM will let you roll another and find a way to incorporate them fully into the group and current narrative. On a MU* that might not be possible at all. Even your name loss might have a social impact after a reroll.
• In table-top there is more social transparency. You are (presumably) playing with friends, people you know. The GM (probably) likes you enough to invite you to their campaign. The party likes your company. On a MU* especially for someone more socially awkward that can appear to be otherwise, while true or not, so when you 'lose' it can seem... personal.

And so on.

[Kassien]

This is something I've often thought about quite a bit as I've looked to develop my own game.

Here is what I have come up with. I apologize if it has already been told in this thread. I've tried to read through it, but I'm a busy guy.

Mechanically these things work for what I'm developing (Shadowrun) but I'm sure it could be adapted elsewhere.

In no particular order...

• Bring up the negative outcomes right away, both IC and OOC. Don't pull a negative consequences out of thin air from a mission/story arch that has reached it's prime and passed.

• All negative outcomes should be a start to something positive. Care to make sure the player knows everyone is there to tell a story and sometimes that starts with bad things. Don't abondoned a story in the middle either so all that players see is the negative.

• Personal I think staff is there to tell the story that develop their players stories more than try and force their own. Tying even negative outcomes to the player's story makes them invest.

• Work with (and help newbie) players to make sure they have the means to recover. Again tying it back to their story may help encourage.

• If death is the negative outcome, let them go out in a blaze of glory. Enshrine the death. Make a monument to them somehow.

• If death is the negative outcome, reward them on their next character. This to me is especially true to the players who have made long term characters.

[kk]

I think one of the main things that can help players deal with negative consequences can be trust in staff.

I am on a game where I trust staff. That trust in staff makes not winning much easier for me than on some other past games. I am not saying staff there is perfect, no staff is every going to be perfect if they are human anyways.

But feeling like they intend to tell an engaging fair story makes it easier to deal and roll with the punches.

A storyline that has no failure would get boring pretty quickly. There is a reason why sandboxy everyone is happy and there is no conflict or competition games get boring super quick.

On games were staff has breached trust not only do I find failure a lot more annoying, but I am also much less impressed with the success of others, I feel much more grumpy about celebrating/rewarding success and I tend to give up even trying to succeed if I know the dice are loaded to speak.

I will never forget this guy pouting up a storm when people oocly refused to engage in scenes celebrating their amazing hero moments when we all believed with very good reasons and evidence that staff was making sure the won/spotlighted/couldn't fail and etc.

I was thinking staff can make sure this person always spotlight everything, but they can't hold a gun to our heads and force us to rp worshipping their chosen/destined hero.

So Tldr: if people trust that staff is fair than a lot of players will be chill, have fun with failure. But one break in the trust can ruin this - such as finding out staff favorites get huge xp gifts and etc.

[kk]

Also I don't think I am alone in this, but a lot of failure is fun for me. I have had some amazing rp from crit failures/botched rolls.

Sometimes it is easier to dramatically fail a roll in a way that becomes and interesting/intense storyline vs a low key failure.

I often would rather trip and break a bone in combat, than just sit their swinging a sword and not having impact on a battle scene.

It a more fun storyline.

and on a similar line - it is easier for deal with a failure that really is a failure - I failed my roll, I had bad luck, I had my character do something stupid. That is all easier to deal with than if I am making my rolls successfully, but the gm is ignoring that i the write up of their story.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

The way I see it the problem we are really trying to solve here is that, unlike table-top or video games, on a MU* there is limited access to desired venues, achievements or outcomes.

There can be, sure, but there doesn't need to be. Even if your game has that setup, I would argue that the way you'd solve a problem like "when you die your OOC name changes and you lose social connections" is very different to how you might solve "access to structured plots varied".

@devrex said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

Well I think the idea is that nobody would go to a movie where the main character wins every interaction.

Sure, but I don't consider that "failure" in the way that much of the thread seemed to be emphasizing. There may be setbacks along the way, but the protagonist (generally) prevails in the end.

Anyway, it seems I'm just approaching all of this from a very different perspective than the rest of y'all due to the type of games I run/play and we're just talking about apples and oranges.

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

The way I see it the problem we are really trying to solve here is that, unlike table-top or video games, on a MU* there is limited access to desired venues, achievements or outcomes.

There can be, sure, but there doesn't need to be. Even if your game has that setup, I would argue that the way you'd solve a problem like "when you die your OOC name changes and you lose social connections" is very different to how you might solve "access to structured plots varied".

I agree, but if this problem had a straight-forward solution - or even if there was a single approach that 'solves' it, no matter how complex it was to implement - I suspect it'd have been a non-issue already.

Getting players to accept or even welcome negative IC outcomes as part of the narrative is difficult.

Again just from reading this thread if I would insist on one approach to not take, though, is to not accept 'hopes and prayers' as a valid strategy. Any of the following for example:

• Staff should be trustworthy/competent
• Players should be mature/communicative

are not really helpful. Of course that's what we want, but there's no real way to design a game around it.

However swiss cheese model approaches can absolutely apply. For example while still building a game ask some questions:

• Which in-game rewards (positions, XP, etc) will the game offer? How are they going to be distributed and why?
• How do we engage players in structured plot (PrPs, staff-ran scenes)?
• How do we match reward to risk?
• How do we handle character death?

And so on.

[mietze]

I think it would be helpful if people stopped making value judgements about someone who feels a momentary pang when something doesn't go their way. A lot of people are quick to jump aggressively on the FAILURE IS FUN!!!!!!!! soapbox (especially when it comes to how other people should feel). I know I can tend to be that way because I personally enjoy hamming up botches and the like personally (I'm sure that's annoying in its own right).

But some people just don't have lucky dice. Or they have less access to scenes that they get to participate in that are very relevant to who their pc is/what they were built for. Yes, failure is an awesome character development arc, but what if you only get to use those skills every 6 months or so, and you just by luck of the roll fail every single use of that skill in front of the group. Unless it's an open +sheet game they don't KNOW that the PC is competent. And people sometimes can and do make comments when someone looks like they've not invested in the skills (unless the game cracks down on people being unkind about rolls).

After seeing one friend in particular who is really awesomely statted get to finally go to a really important, pivotal battle scene and fail everything and as a result get KOed early (while keeping a brave OOC face on and cheering other people on, but feeling horrible about it and being sidelined early), I think people should have some compassion too. That's an extreme, but I do think a lot of people do feel a momentary "awww, man!" moment even for a single failure during an IC character skill choke.

I think it's easier to fail ICly when people aren't judgey ooc about the failure itself, and when they're supportive about someone taking a moment to shake it off, and then move on while making sure there's opportunites for more RP. The reality is that while failure should lead to more growth opportunities, often times it really usually doesn't, once the scene is over it's done (esp. if was a staff run scene) just like awesome success in a scene doesn't always. I think a supportive environment can do a lot to make whatever it is more fun though.