[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Rewards

[Raph Koster]

Sean Howard wrote:
>
> "Raph Koster" <rkoster at san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> ANY reward distorts the playing field in that way, and dropping all
>> rewards isn't a viable strategy either.
>>
>> A lack of rewards is a very good way to make your game
>> inaccessible and unfun to most people.
>
> Interesting. I disagree (of course), but I can think of dozens, if not
> hundreds, of games with no reward structure at all (or at least a
> minimal one), and they didn't seem to suffer. What, for example,
> rewards were given in a game of capture the flag in Unreal Tournament
> that made it so popular?

"Head shot!"
"Monster kill!"
"You win!"
"#1 world ranking on ngWorldStats"

Uh, those are rewards.

Side note: on SWG, we actually had the #1 CTF guy in the world and the
#1 Deathmatch guy in the world in UT on our team, as measured by
ngWorldStats. It made the team matches a lot of fun as long as they were
on opposing sides.

> Where are the rewards in a game of Magic: The Gathering? The
> Secret of Monkey Island? Tic Tac Toe? Chess? Tetris? Basketball?
> These are not reward based games.

I think you are using a very narrow definition of reward.

> But before people chime in with the semantics, not all positive
> outcomes are rewards. Victory is not a reward, the effect of one's
> strategy is not a reward, and measures (like a score) are not
> rewards. Sure, you can reward somebody with a higher score, but
> having a score is not a reward in itself.

A reward is the *recognition* of a positive outcome. A game without
rewards is one where there is no recognition of the event. Lots of games
do in fact not give this feedback -- board games for example, skimp on
it a lot. Usually, the look on the face of the other player provides the
reward, however.

You seem to be defining a reward as a tangible new token within the
game. I think that means much of the prior conversation was people
talking past one another.

Reward is psychology, not objects, IMHO.