Text only | Text with Images

The Forge Archives

General Forge Forums => Actual Play => Topic started by: Silmenume on February 25, 2005, 04:10:21 AM

Title: [Middle Earth - home brew] - last week.
Post by: Silmenume on February 25, 2005, 04:10:21 AM
Hey Everyone,

This is only my second foray into the Actual Play forum.  Once again I am faced with the issue of how to proceed.  I have read the sticky many times and have looked over a number of other posts for guidance.  The problem is that in Sim finding and writing about "important" or "defining" moments of play is extremely difficult if not oxymoronic.  As the whole process of Sim play, bricolage (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14371), is inevitably an open ended foray into Situation, I am faced with the prospect of making editorial decisions without any guidelines regarding demarcation points.  IOW there are many threads that lead into this one evening's worth of play, meet, interact and wend outward without hard beginnings, middle or ends.

To borrow from Chris Bankuei

Premise[list=1]
Title: [Middle Earth - home brew] - last week.
Post by: Andrew Norris on February 25, 2005, 11:42:54 AM
Very interesting post, Silmenume. I think there's a number of interesting points in there, and I'm still teasing them apart in my head.

The first thing that strikes me is the indication of critical success or failure via  die rolls at important moments. I know all of us remember the "big" dice rolls that went amazingly well or poorly, and I always wonder whether the moments are big because of the rolls, or vice versa. (I don't remember any critical successes during boring situations in my games, for example.)

I know I'm relying on my personal interpretation, but it seems to me that the new player, not yet being as invested into the SIS as the other players, was bound more into a strict rule-based simulation as a method of interacting than the other players. For instance, his characters' deaths in combat seemed to be a direct result of his interactions with the rules as written. I contrast that with the vampire PC's use of magic and the Jin PC's martial-arts combat, both of which were played out in a more impromptu fashion, where the results of the dice were more like a "casting of the bones" to determine how things would ultimately result.

I don't consider that "unfair", but it puts in my mind the idea that character effectiveness is linked to player effectiveness, specifically in how well a player can engage the group by proposing interesting events in the SIS.  On the other hand, it's entirely possible that as characters advance, their abilities become more broadly defined and more up to an interpretive resolution method rather than a "by the book" one.

I suppose my question is that I'm curious which of these you think was more relevant:

(a) Established characters are more effective by the rules, to the extent that they can be assumed to succeed at simple tasks, and thus they are open to attempting broader activities, or

(b) Established characters, being played by long-term players who have a large stake in the SIS, can attempt activities which involve larger changes in the SIS because the player is informally trusted not to abuse that ability.

One thought experiment that might illuminate the question would be to consider how the new player's characters might have been handled were they being played by a long-term player.

I'm afraid my question is ill-formed, so I'm happy to try to explain it better if needed.
Title: [Middle Earth - home brew] - last week.
Post by: Silmenume on February 26, 2005, 09:07:26 PM
Hey Andrew,

Thanks for taking the time to slog through the entire post and then taking the time to reply.

Quote from: Andrew NorrisThe first thing that strikes me is the indication of critical success or failure via  die rolls at important moments. I know all of us remember the "big" dice rolls that went amazingly well or poorly, and I always wonder whether the moments are big because of the rolls, or vice versa. (I don't remember any critical successes during boring situations in my games, for example.)

I think important moments and "critical" die rolls feed off of/support one another.  The way we play, as much as I understand it, die rolls are called for based upon discretion and that discretion is usually based on the idea of just how important, exciting, intense is this action and does handing off the decision making authority to a "third 'disinterested' party" heighten the tension of said actions/events.  The actual moments chosen for a die roll is actually called for are just as import as the results of the roll.  IOW that the GM is calling for a roll at this moment may communicate something that is beyond what the current circumstances seemingly would indicate.

Quote from: Andrew NorrisI know I'm relying on my personal interpretation, but it seems to me that the new player, not yet being as invested into the SIS as the other players, was bound more into a strict rule-based simulation as a method of interacting than the other players. For instance, his characters' deaths in combat seemed to be a direct result of his interactions with the rules as written. I contrast that with the vampire PC's [I am going to assume you meant the "necromancer" aka Nicodemus – let me know if I am wrong – JW] use of magic and the Jin PC's martial-arts combat, both of which were played out in a more impromptu fashion, where the results of the dice were more like a "casting of the bones" to determine how things would ultimately result.

I should note that while there are "rules" for combat, there are no texts by which one reads and attempts to apply to the game process.  There are combat mechanics and they are usually taught in about 10-15 minutes.  However in application rarely are the mechanics called upon in a very strict sense.  The mechanics lend structure to the combat process and they help quickly quantify what might be difficult or hazy concepts to speed things along, but in and of themselves they are subservient to the ebb and flow of the events transpiring in the SIS.  IOW we don't really use them to model the combat "accurately" rather to speed up the "discourse" between the interested parties when necessary or when the employment of them makes the combat more tense/interesting.

Regarding the new player, I would agree that he probably did function in a more "traditional" manner during the combat, but I think that was due to his inexperience with the manner in which we use "mechanics".  By the way, I am not faulting the player for this, it is something all of us players have gone through.  It is part of the learning process and it added a level of mystery or unlearned wisdom that for me created a hunger to learn more about.  That they are somewhat "vague" is, I guess, is purposeful.  Ultimately it was the players inability to make sound/effective decisions under the circumstances that was his undoing.  Again this is not meant to read as me saying that he was "incapable" or "incompetent" as a roleplayer, but rather an indication of his unfamiliarity with our process.  On a certain level part of the combats are structured in such a way as to purposefully create stress on the players so as to heighten the "affects" that are inherent in combat generally.  This intentional "stress" is moderated to capability to each player at the table, so in this case the new player was given, as we more experienced players would regarded it, a very large allotment of time by which to make his decisions.  The awareness of the amount of time allotted for reacting is extremely subjective and that is part of the point of the manner in which we run combats.

Regarding the "impromptu" fashion of the more "experienced" players, I would say that part of the game play itself is in the "fun" of "designing" such systems via concrete actions within the SIS.  It is not so important that such systems of combat or mechanics be spelled out before hand, but rather that via our actions within the SIS we are "demonstrating" our character's capabilities in a fashion that plausibly consistent with the tenets or constructions within the world.  IOW it's more fun to create and demonstrate than to use and employ that which already is.  Yes, we like having a structural framework so we can have some notions of the potential likely results of our actions so that we can make decisions that are "consistent" with the nature of the fictional world, but the "mechanics" need not be spelled out in the their entirety.  One time a player was playing an elf who was out of arrows and was in dire need.  He turned to a tree, "sang" a song, reached into and pulled an arrow from the heart of the tree.  Prior to this event there was no real precedent for this particular action.  We knew that elves sang much and that they had a very close relationship with nature and they were an "inherently magical" people, so the player put this all together and "sang an arrow from a tree."  This was very, very cool!  A die was rolled to see if he succeeded, but there was no pre-existing mechanic to cover this and say X needs to be rolled to determine Y success.  

Which brings me to your phrase that the dice are like the "casting of bones" to determine how things turn out.  That is more or less accurate, as I understand your phrasing.  However, I should note, that there are no tables that one matches the die roll against to get the outcome.  The die rolls are a general indicator of the success or failure of an action based upon the relevant mitigating factors – skill, weather, personal conditions, etc.

To get back to your comment on the new player I would not say that he died as a result of a more strict application of the mechanics system, but rather he just froze up and was unable to make effective decisions at that moment in general.

Quote from: Andrew NorrisI don't consider that "unfair", but it puts in my mind the idea that character effectiveness is linked to player effectiveness, specifically in how well a player can engage the group by proposing interesting events in the SIS.  On the other hand, it's entirely possible that as characters advance, their abilities become more broadly defined and more up to an interpretive resolution method rather than a "by the book" one.

There certainly is a relationship between character effectiveness and player effectiveness.  The relationship, however, is not without limits.  For example, just because the a very experienced player of a "1st level" character comes up with a brilliant combat maneuver to get himself out of a very difficult jam, does not mean that he will succeed or even be likely to succeed.  IOW the GM does take into account the "skill level" of the character when interpreting the dice rolls.  In some cases if the player is blatantly "over playing" his skills or not taking into account certain circumstances about his character, say he picks up a weapon he has never used before but employs it in a very sophisticated manner, then GM may actually assign additional penalties beyond what might be "expected" under the circumstances.

Quote from: Andrew NorrisI suppose my question is that I'm curious which of these you think was more relevant:

(a) Established characters are more effective by the rules, to the extent that they can be assumed to succeed at simple tasks, and thus they are open to attempting broader activities, or

(b) Established characters, being played by long-term players who have a large stake in the SIS, can attempt activities which involve larger changes in the SIS because the player is informally trusted not to abuse that ability.

If forced to make a choice I would say that "a" is probably more relevant, but not by much.  The game is a mix between levels and skills, though mostly skills based.  That being said the higher a skill level a person has the greater their facility with that skill.  Trust, I believe, greases the skids but in and of itself is not sufficient to allow success in actions alone.  If the player tried to do something that was "beyond" their skill level/capability even if they were "trusted" then the action could be rejected outright, given enough minuses that it is virtually guaranteed to fail, the act could be attempted but conclude with catastrophic results, etc.  The thing that throws me in this particular question is that there are no hard and fast mechanics regarding skills.  There are numbers but what they represent is nebulous at best – which makes them open to interpretation.  Which is one of the points of play in the first place.

Quote from: Andrew NorrisOne thought experiment that might illuminate the question would be to consider how the new player's characters might have been handled were they being played by a long-term player.

The problem wasn't in the handling of his decisions; it was that there were either no responses, or they were ineffective or "poor" responses given the circumstances.  On several occasions the player let the "clock run out" so in effect did nothing in response to the actions of his foe.  Other times he attempted actions that were ineffective.  An example of this might was the time a berserker was holding the player character up by his hair from behind.  Obviously a bad thing was going to happen in a few moments and the GM asked the player what he wanted to do.  For a few seconds he didn't say anything then the new player stated that he "hit the berserker in the face with his fist."  The problem was that the character was not in position to do this at all – just punching behind himself was going to be extremely ineffective.  You may ask what he could have done.  Other possibilities included thrashing about, kicking backwards, attempting to jerk ones head out of the berserker's grasp, lunging one's body backwards in an attempt to knock the berserker off balance, etc.

I hope that I have provided some acceptable/interesting answers.
Title: [Middle Earth - home brew] - last week.
Post by: Andrew Norris on February 28, 2005, 11:34:57 AM
Thanks! I think I understand the situation better. I appreciate the dialog.
Text only | Text with Images