It is difficult for me to play some games. Mostly because, in my opinion, those games have skewed views of player expectation. I’m not (necessarily) saying that the problem is with the players — I’m saying the problem is with what the players expect from the system.
Mostly, I don’t like bribes.
Bribes undermine the basic trust assumptions of a good roleplaying game and seem to presume (to my thinking) a competitive side that assumes that players will “cheat” and GM’s are “out to get ya.” Both of these are poor assumptions and I really struggle with them in a gaming sense. More specifically, I guess I struggle with the idea that we (as players and GMs) need to be protected from each other by the mechanics of our games rather than our own ability to interact.
I’m going to pick on Mutants and Masterminds (M&M) because it is a game I know well and it exemplifies the Bribe economy in a game. Don’t take it personally M&M, you are not alone, you just happened to be perfectly positioned as an example right now.
Specifically, M&M addresses the “pay-as-you-go” model of character flaws by using Complications and Hero Points. Effectively, this comes down to two things. First, the idea that players will do everything they can to ignore or mitigate a character’s drawbacks once the game begins because “they’ve already gotten paid.” Second, the idea that (beyond character creation) the PCs deserve a bribe for accepting the possibility that bad things can happen to their characters.
I’ll say it: I straight up hate this thinking.
Do I know players who are willing to resort to whatever shenanigans they can to get one over with disadvantages in games? Yes I do. Do I ever game with those folks again? Nope. The game doesn’t fix the bad behavior, it only masks it. And that is assuming the player even agrees to go along with the proposed complication — a player can simply continue to ignore their weaknesses, they just don’t get mechanical rewards for doing so. A player of the type who would “game the system” in one type of game will find ways “game the system” here as well and get HP for silly things (basically, whatever they can wheedle for). Because that’s the problem with bribes. They set up the expectation that they are somehow deserved.
To the second count of the GM inserting a situational complication and handing out hero points for going along with it… I think the designers’ hearts are in the right place. It’s about genre protection. “If you let the villain escape, I’ll give you a hero point.” “A building suddenly explodes down the street and civilians are in danger! If you respond to that instead of continuing to pummel the villain, I’ll give you a hero point.” “If you talk to the villain instead of rolling initiative, I’ll give you a hero point.” And a dozen other examples. Basically, we are rewarding players for taking actions that: (1) Already make sense in the type of game they’ve chosen to play, and (2) Encouraging “good behavior” only by creating a bad new expectation.
This kind of thing is a cop-out first and makes us lazier in our table responsibilities. If the GM wants the villain to escape, have a good plan that lets the villain escape. If the players don’t want to play Superheroes — don’t be playing a superhero game.
At the risk of being the biggest Amber fan-boy on the planet, I’m going to trot out that game to show an alternative. One way that you earn more points to build your character in Amber (and probably character creation is more vital in that game because the opportunities to alter what you did at the beginning are so limited) is to commit to investing more in the game. You earn rewards not for making easy choices in game that are probably already built-in expectations of the game you are playing — but by committing yourself to bettering the game experience for yourself or others. For example: how many of you would be willing to commit to writing a game journal — in the voice of your character — for the duration of a campaign, if all you got for it was 10 points, up front? I’ve got folders full of these things at home, so some certainly are willing. But that’s the alternative. To require a commitment from the Player instead of just the character.
Getting back to the other half of the equation — the idea of a competitiveness problem. I’ll admit, I love challenging my players and their characters. I enjoy games that involve emotional commitment, powerful storylines, and drama. What I’ve never understood though, is why a GM would consider the game a competition with players? This isn’t a war-game. It isn’t 40K, Battletech, or Diplomacy. The GM’s role is almost that of co-conspirator. You are the players senses, their relationships, and the narrator of outcomes. You might occasionally “betray” a fellow conspirator by throwing in a clever trick or a fiendish trap — but you aren’t out to get them… you are setting them up for success even when it seems they are at their lowest. And it is the “job” of the players to understand this ebb and flow of narrative responsibility and cooperation to improve the game. Just as different play-styles can work in the same group if everyone is willing to let others have their moments, so to is it with players and GMs. It is their job to work together to have the best game.
Bribes break down this dynamic. They mechanize a social exchange and turn it into an economic one. Bribes incentivize poor behavior because you know you’ll get a reward from the GM when you “give in.” Bribes turn trust into a transaction.
For me (and I realize full well that I don’t speak for everyone — this is for me) I don’t need (or want) to play a game that feels the need to mechanize the GM/player interaction and that feels the need to bribe me to act in accordance with the basic presumptions of the game world/genre or to “not be a dick” at the table.