Okay, as promised, I have written up my best guess at an Example of Play (http://home.earthlink.net/~albasch/Capes/SceneGoalExample.html) for the Scene Goal rules that Doug recommended here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=136347#136347). I'll be interested to hear whether I got it right or whether I'm completely confused.
The scene certainly seemed to resolve very quickly. I really can't tell whether that's because the new Action-Turns structure pushes the players through Pages of action much more rapidly or whether it's because of the story being tied to the resolution of one Complication. Something to talk about.
The deliberate choice to let the robbers go was interesting. I like authorial choices like that, because it helps loosen the players up. Still, I could see people getting really burned because they reached for a risky victory rather than a safe defeat. This would probably be less of an issue with Complications other than innocent bystanders about to be electrocuted though, so I'm not too worried.
Anyway, an interesting notion. I think I have a better sense of the dynamics of it now. I do have a few questions in this context:
- What would happen to the Wounded Man Complication? It didn't resolve. Should that automatically benefit the heroes?
- Should Silverstar be getting an Inspiration from the Hostages? Technically she didn't resolve it, she just cared enough that its unresolved state favored her. Or something.
- And, of course... is this anything vaguely close to what Doug was actually suggesting?[/list:u]
Tony,
This is very close to what I was suggesting, very close indeed. If only I was as good at understanding your posts I'd be a happy man.
Only difference would be that I'd allow Silverstar to keep rolling on the Hostages Complication after the Villains had quit the scene. This is her 'reward' for keeping up an investment in the Complication.
The Villains wouldn't be able to roll back (as they have left) so Silverstar shouldn't have any problem in winning this.
The end result would be that Silverstar gains an Inspiration (or other bonus) form rescuing the Hostages, but the Villains gain Victory Points (I think these should only be gained for Goals achieved.)
As for the Wounded man, as the heroes spent points on him, he should resolve in their favour. However, I admit that it would be more fitting if he managed to escape in the chaos - after all, no-one rolled a die on him once!
Regards,
Doug
EDIT: question removed as this was explained in the new rules
I think I see what you're saying about heroes sticking around after the resolution of the Scene Goal.
Does that make deliberately losing the scene a decisive advantage? The heroes would be more able to run up an Inspiration off of Hostages than they would have been if they'd actually caught the bad-guys.
I'm not sure if I'm reading your intent on this correctly.
Quote from: TonyLBDoes that make deliberately losing the scene a decisive advantage? The heroes would be more able to run up an Inspiration off of Hostages than they would have been if they'd actually caught the bad-guys.
This is one of the reasons why I see the Goal and the Complications as two different things.
Goals are about advancing an agenda. If the Villains get away from the bank raid, with the cash, they are able to fund the next stage of their Ruthless Plans - in other words, they are 'winning.' If the Heroes rescue the Hostages, they get an Inspiration, but they have failed to bring the Villains to justice - which means that the good people of Liberty City are still at risk!
In order to actually
defeat the Villains, the Heroes have to win Goals.
This doesn't mean that the Goals are 'better' than Complications - Complications are really cool and good Complications are worth fighting for! They also help the Heroes to save up an advantage (Inspiration) for the next big showdown.
I see the Villains winning more of the early Scenes, by stealing Goals while the Heroes struggle with Complications. Once the Heroes rack up enough Inspiration, they should be able to deal with the Goal
and any Complications the Villains chuck at them. At which point the Heroes 'win' the Story, and the villainous plots are in ruins. Whether the Villain is destroyed or captured, or escapes to scheme another day, is a style question (ie make up the most satisfying ending.)
So what happens if the heroes win the first goal? Do they then get to start defining their own goals (since the villainous plans are in ruins) or something else?
Guess that depends on the overall story. If the conflict was against a bunch of henchmen, they give a clue to the identity of the big villain.
Or perhaps they get the villain under arrest, but he escapes from the cell (or gets a shady lawyer to get him released on a technicality.)
Frankly, this game appears to be less about 'winning' and more about being heroic and being, well, cool. (Even if you are wearing spandex. And a cape.)
So if the Heroes win the 'Goal', they get to say 'yaay!', clutch their Inspirations, and move on to the next bit of the story.
If they lose the 'goal' they get to say 'boo!', clutch their Inspirations and move on the the next bit of the Story.
In other words, the main purpose of Scene Goals is to move the story along. Call 'em 'Chapters' if that helps...
Are you envisioning that the Editor will know the full sequence of Scene Goals before the game starts?
No, because no-one (including the Editor) knows who will win an individual Goal.
The results of the Goal scenes help to inform the main 'Heroes vs. Villains' story. The Complications help to make that story interesting, by providing hard choices for the Heroes (and possibly the Villains too.)
However, consider Great Big Fat Page One - this provides a foreshadowing of something that needs to happen later in the play session. So the Editor does know at least something about the story.
This rule appears to have been dropped in the latest version of the rules, is there a reason for this? I think that if the players and Editor have already agreed on some of the plot elements, without saying exactly how they will appear, this gives the Editor enough licence to steer the story without railroading the plot.
Quote from: Doug RuffNo, because no-one (including the Editor) knows who will win an individual Goal.
Okay, can you give me a specific hypothetical example along this structure:
- Scene A, and its Scene Goal
- A possible Scene B and its scene goal if the heroes win the Goal of Scene A
- A possible Scene B and its scene goal if the heroes lose the Goal of Scene A.[/list:u]
I just don't see (from your previous examples) how they're going to diverge. The difference between a villain getting away clean, and the same villain being put in prison and immediately escaping seems minimal to me, but that's probably just a question of that particular example.
OK, since we've been using this example:
Scene A: Bank Robbery
Hero Goal: Capture the robbers
Villain Goal: Escape with the money
Overall Story: robbers are in the employ of a major Villain (not present), the Villain needs funds for his Peril Machine.
Example development if Heroes win: robbers are arrested. In an attempt to plea bargain, they offer information about their employer - 'he told us to drive the van to Warehouse 8 in the Docks.' Heroes decide to investigate, so scene B involves them snooping around the Warehouse.
Example development if Heroes lose: robbers get away with the cash. Heroes may be taken in for questioning if they caused extensive 'collaterol damage'. Three days later, the City Mayor gets an anonymous message:
'Pay $20 Million into a specified Swiss Bank account or we destroy you city with the Peril Machine. In one hour's time we will destroy the Liberty Memorial as a demonstration of our powers. Have a nice day.
- Dr Malevolent.'
Scene B could be the heroes being questioned by the Police; or attempting to evacuate the area around the Liberty Memorial; or about attemoting to find and destroy the Peril Machine.
All of these scenes are different, but they do not change the 'backstory', which is about the Peril Machine and the threat that it represents to Liberty City.
(Note: the previous 'villain escapes/the villain is arrested and escapes' was a fairly lame example - but I wanted to illustrate that the main difference between success and failure is more about narrative than about changing the overall story.)
Quote from: Doug Ruff... Goals are about advancing an agenda.... I see the Villains winning more of the early Scenes, by stealing Goals while the Heroes struggle with Complications. Once the Heroes rack up enough Inspiration, they should be able to deal with the Goal and any Complications the Villains chuck at them.
Now that's a nice dynamic indeed, and very genre-appropriate. The trick is not rail-roading play into one linear sequence of pre-planned Goals (i.e. bad guys rob the bank to get the money, spend the money to buy the parts, put the parts together at the wharehouse to make the machine, use the machine to threaten the city, etc.).
I want to chime in with a "huzzah" as well. If the mechanics can be generated such that the game tends to follow an early series of Villain "victories" with the Heroes coming back in the end... Well, i guess i just think that that would be great.
Thomas
I, too, like the idea of early setbacks leading to eventual victory. Good pacing is cool. I also think it's already in the system (via debts and stakes) although it might be more on-topic to discuss that question in the Debt or Resource (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12719) thread.
I'm not so much in love with the phrase "Overall story" that popped up, though. The overall story is not something you know while playing the game. You can't tell what it is until the game is over. Is this something that Scene Goals relies upon, or was it just a side-comment meant to help give us some context on the hypothetical scenes being discussed?
To make it specific, let's suppose that the heroes win the first Scene Goal. To do that Major Majestic selflessly chooses to lose the "Get to sons birthday" Complication. The heroes find out that the villain wanted to build a Peril Machine. They also find out that he needed the money that he now doesn't have. Problem solved.
They decide they want to explore Majestic's family life. While Majestic himself despairs of ever being a good father, his team-mates decide to use their super-abilities to secretly organize a spectacular (if late) birthday bash to win back the young man's affections.
Does the Scene Goal system easily support/represent running the remainder of the story primarily around organizing the birthday party?
I believe it does. The 'overall story' bit is mainly about the Editor know why the Villains are robbing the bank. Consider it to be the default story until the heroes come up with something more interesting.
In the 'birthday missed' example, it's easy for the group to decide to explore this avenue instead, and make it the focus of the rest of the story.
However, as an Editor, I would note that Dr Malevolent is still out there, and he still needs funds. This isn't so that I can ram it down the player's throats at the next opportunity, more so I have another Scene 'in my pocket' if the players finish their current story and then say to me 'OK, what next?'
I mentioned the Great Big Fat Page One earlier in this thread, and suggested that it provides a foreshadowing of the story to come. In other words, a Page One implies an 'overall story' that must be adhered to. Is this an issue as well? Is there still a Page One to consider?
I removed the Cover rules for that precise reason, actually. They were nice, and stylish, but they put the Editor in the wrong mindset.
So we'd need rules to decide which one person has authority over the Scene Goal. Would a particular player choose to Claim and Resolve the previous Scene Goal, as Complications are handled now?
IMHO, claiming the Goal isn't a problem. If any player claims it, they've done it for the side.
The tricky bit is agreeing what the Goal is in the first place. I think a 'team huddle' at the start of the scene to agree this is acceptable.
And if one player can't agree with the team Goal and wants to pursue their own Agenda (kill the Bank Robbers, rather than capture them) then I think the rules can already handle them taking their own side, even splitting dice from their team near the end of the conflict (betrayal!)
I'm sorry, Doug, but I don't see what this does that Complication's don't do already.
If all of the players are agreed that some Complication is the "key conflict" of the scene then they're going to put most of their effort into it, on both sides of the hero/villain divide. Which means that it will be worth a lot of Victory Points. Which means that when it's resolved the scene will end. So when you have the consensus that Scene Goals would require anyway, Complications work just like Scene Goals.
However, if the players aren't agreed on which Complication is key then the existing Complication system lets them find out by playing the game. Scene Goals would prevent that.
I appreciate that you've put a lot of thought into this, but I don't have a use for it.
Fair enough, Tony, I can see that. In which case, I'll try very hard to avoid using Goal (with a capital "G") from now on (unless it's at the beginning of a sentence!)
Thanks for taking the time to explore this with me - I would suggest that this thread is now closed unless someone has something really important to say about it.