This is my main problem with mechanically rewarding pro-social play: a character's ethical choice is rendered mercenary.
"Being good for a reward isn’t being good - it’s just optimal play. "
"Being good for a reward isn’t being good - it’s just optimal play. "
https://twitter.com/LukeGearing/status/1372241766355775488
Bear in mind I'm not saying that pro-social play can't have "rewarding" outcomes for players:
Any decision should have (diegetic?) consequences in the fiction. The townsfolk are thankful; the goblins remember your mercy, etc.
But extra XP tickets for ethical decisions stinks.
Any decision should have (diegetic?) consequences in the fiction. The townsfolk are thankful; the goblins remember your mercy, etc.
But extra XP tickets for ethical decisions stinks.
If you give bonus XP for sparing goblins your players aren't making a decisions based on how much their value life. They are making a decision based on how much they want XP.
A subtle but *absolutely* essential distinction, when it comes to ethics.
A subtle but *absolutely* essential distinction, when it comes to ethics.
Heck: I'd go so far as to argue that laying out definitive outcomes -ie: "*if* you help the villagers, the party *definitely* gets +1 attitude modifier for them in future"- shifts the decision from being ethical to mercenary ...
... is assisting a community in need worthy for its own sake? Or are you making this decision for that +1 bonus?
"I as the *player* am making a mechanically optimal choice, but my *character* is making an ethical choice!"
Sorry, this strikes me as a cop-out ... A fictional fig-leaf of empathy hiding a mathematical decision.
Sorry, this strikes me as a cop-out ... A fictional fig-leaf of empathy hiding a mathematical decision.
(This was in a branch-off thread, but I thought it worth reproducing.)
I personally feel like existing systems (which incentivise antisocial play in RPGs) have value, in that they model the drives fueling amoral / unethical behaviour in real life.
I personally feel like existing systems (which incentivise antisocial play in RPGs) have value, in that they model the drives fueling amoral / unethical behaviour in real life.
Material gain is the drive of logging and land-grabbing. Logger-barons *do* materially wealthier and more privileged, as a "reward" for their terrible actions.
If you want to present an ethical choice in play, congruent to our real-life dilemmas, there's value in asking:
"Hey, if you kill the goblins you can grab their treasure, and you *will* get richer. There's no reward for sparing their lives, except thanks."
"Hey, if you kill the goblins you can grab their treasure, and you *will* get richer. There's no reward for sparing their lives, except thanks."
Which is a way of asking:
"Does your commitment to preserving life outweigh the material incentives for taking life? Will you choose the ethical choice, if -as it often does, in real life- this involves you sacrificing personal growth and gain?"
"Does your commitment to preserving life outweigh the material incentives for taking life? Will you choose the ethical choice, if -as it often does, in real life- this involves you sacrificing personal growth and gain?"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
